Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341

Appeal Edit Block on Elections in Cuba

I recently reported other users for editwarring on Elections in Cuba. However, even though I was the only one presenting arguments for my edits, I was the one blocked from editing the page. I would like to be unblocked and begin a disscussion on the articles talk page to resolve the conflict. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No. You should consider yourself thankful that the block (1) only applies to one page, and (2) is only for a month. Consider your behavior and learn from it, or your next block will be more punitive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• If you are blocking me, then User:Snooganssnoogans should be blocked as well. There are at least two recorded instances excluding mine on the articles talk page where they have reverted edits meant to ensure political neutrality. They, as an editor, have an obvious right-wing political bias against Cuba. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Two reverts an edit war does not make, read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Propose upgrading to general block

I don't think being blocked from just the page has gotten the message through. Editor was extremely lucky to only be blocked from editing the page the first time around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a mild block (I placed it), but then it's the user's first block. That said, I've no objection if another admin wishes to embiggen it, especially considering this foolish report that they made. Note for Hcoder3104: you are not blocked from the talkpage, so I don't see anything stopping you from beginning a discussion there to resolve the conflict. Bishonen | tålk 17:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

At this stage I will point out the filer has made false accusations of meat puppetry (or as they called it "Uncoordinated meat puppetry" (whatever the hell that is)) and has left tit for tat edit warring warnings (and filed a report) after a single revert of their edit. Not as well that reasons were offered for reverting them such as " There is no discussion of this on the talk page." and "You need to make a case". On the other hand some of their reasons were " Edit is disruptive and unhelpful. You have been warned on your talk page" (a warning for edit waring after one revert) and "Contribution to an edit war so must be undone" (again after one revert).Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nor have they informed anyone they are in dispute with of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hcoder3104 -- you are clearly not understanding either the plain text or the spirit of the edit warring policy. When several people disagree with you--even if you are "right"--the first thought should be "there is a consensus and I need to change it," not "people are conspiring against me." The latter requires extraordinary evidence, and I have seen you produce no evidence at all. I personally would not support a general block, but I think showing you get why the page block occurred would help you tremendously. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I never accused them of meatpuppetry, I was just saying how multiple people editing results in no one reaching the three revert mark. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I understand why I was blocked. I just don't believe it was justified. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes you did [[1]] " And yes, I am accusing you of uncoordinated meat puppetry", and not just once [[2]] "which is a way so they will not reach the three revert rule by teaming up".Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Misspell. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Missspell" what word did you mean?. And this [[3]] "As I have noted, the three of you are working together so you won't reach the three revert rule"? With this I think it is clear the user is trying to game the system to wp:rightgreatwrongs (in this case over Cuba), and a Tban might be needed as I do not think this will end here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Support some type of upgrade. Unclear on the right scope. I have got to wonder how USER:Hcoder3104 ended up here.[4] I see no sign of interest in the Olympics before or since. Is it coincidental that, shortly after my involvement with this incident, the user put in a merge vote on an article I created (which admittedly may not meet WP:GNG)? I would also note this enormous deletion which the user misleadingly marked as "minor"[5] and tried a second time on [6] after being reverted. Also another enormous removal here [7] with a second try here [8] after the first one was reverted. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw it on your talk page, and I decided to contribute like any good wikipedian. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also the edits were made before I was familiar with Wikipedia policy, and frankly they are just making the articles more factual. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hcoder3104, I suggest you read WP:3RR which explains the criteria under which you were blocked. Basically if you make more than three reverts on one article within 24 hours you can and almost always will be blocked, whatever your reasons are. Going forward, you may be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't exceed 3 reverts. Take this time to learn the rules and decide whether you want to follow them or leave the project. Your appeal here incidentally is disruptive because you have no grounds for appeal and it shows you have not read the policy on blocking editors for edit-warring. You were given leeway because you are a new editor, but do not expect any in the future. I suggest you accept you were mistaken in this appeal and say that you will not edit war in future. TFD (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Closure review: Portal links on the Main Page's top banner

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.

---

Main discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 186 § Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner

Closure challenge: User talk:The Gnome § Closure challenge

General debriefing with multiple editors: User talk:The Gnome § Main page closure

I am challenging The Gnome’s closure of WP:VPR § Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner as “no consensus”. I don’t want to add too much text to what has already been said, but I’m happy to expand if needed.

This was a proposal to remove links to portals from the Main Page’s top banner. It listed on T:CENT but not tagged as a RfC. It did not involve the application of a policy or a guideline, but essentially a judgment call by the community. Keeping in mind WP:NOVOTE, the numerical outcome was 30 “support” and 17 “oppose”.

The Gnome closed the discussion as no consensus. In brief, they noted that some support !votes also discussed the possibility of moving the links to another location on the main page, and that some support !votes revolve[d] around the general worthiness of portals. In their view, this lead to an an adulterated result and, therefore, no consensus.

I disagree, for two main reasons. First, I don’t think the proposal was as unclear as The Gnome makes it in their closing: it revolved around a single issue (portal links in the top banner), a point that was underlined shortly after the discussion began [9]. Second, I don’t think that the discussion of issues that were beside the proposal resulted in such a train wreck that the discussion yielded “no consensus”. People expressed their views on the main proposal, and also had discussions on other questions, and this should not affect the outcome.

My understanding of the consensus is as follows: there was consensus to remove portal links from the main page's top banner, but no consensus on whether they should be moved somewhere else. My suggested course of action is to take no action until this second question is discussed by the community through a second discussion or an RfC. JBchrch talk 15:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Though I 'voted' for the portals to remain on the Main Page, I've no objections to the closure, or any objections to it being challenged. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Greetings, all. My preliminary response to the objections to the closure has been posted here. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• I made my comments on The Gnome's talk page already. I will just reiterate that I strongly appreciate The Gnome explaining their rationale in detail - that's good and should be praised, despite / especially when it leads to pushback! Anyway, there may be reasons to close the discussion as "No Consensus", but I strongly disagree with The Gnome's claim that the discussion was "adulterated" or otherwise too much of a trainwreck. It really wasn't that complicated: most editors wanted to either remove, cut down, or move the links, all very similar proposals, and the rationales were largely shared among everyone. I recognize that this may not have been The Gnome's intent, but the implications from a close such as this are that future RFCs should be extremely blunt - that a proposal should be laid down and people have to vote it up or down with no changes, no clarifications, no rationales, no extra thoughts. A Wikipedia consensus process that worked that way would be a worse and weaker one than the sometimes messy soup we have now. Maybe the discussion should still be closed No Consensus if there's other problems afoot with a close of "remove" or "move", but I would prefer the stance that the "adulterations" were a problem be explicitly repudiated. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who commented in the RFC, I agree with Snowfire's take. --Izno (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Long version on TG's talk page; TLDR: I think it should be reopened, tagged as an RFC, and TG's closure made into a relisting statement to help focus further discussion. Levivich 05:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• As I wrote in the talk page discussion: This was a good close as the discussion clearly did not come to any consensus, not even to "do something", let alone anything specific. It cannot be presumed that either those who want rid of the links all together or those who want to keep them would be happy with a move, nor that those who wanted a move (where?) would be happy with complete removal. The only hope of getting a consensus would be to start a new, properly advertised discussion with a much clearer scope. I'd also recommend avoid using page views as an argument as editors cannot agree on whether being viewed by a similar number of people to other links from the main page means they are viewed by many or few readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  You need to disclose that you are WP:INVOLVED here, since you !voted in the survey. JBchrch talk 23:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that, so far, everyone who has responded to this closure challenge has been involved in the closed discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes but this was the first admin comment. JBchrch talk 13:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. But in that discussion, Thryduulf acted strictly as an editor who !votes and not as an administrator. Here too, Thryduulf offers an opinion. I have always understood that rule as disapproving cases where an admin takes part in a discussion or dispute and then acts as an admin in the same dispute. The pertinent text reads as follows: In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. In the present case, I did not see Thryduulf or any other admin "acting as admins". -The Gnome (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have no problem with anyone expressing any opinion about anything anywhere. But the point of coming to AN is to get input from neutral admins, so I think it's reasonable to ask admins who have !voted in the original proposal to just disclose it. To quote Bilorv on your talk page: I think a lot of people do not appreciate how deep WP:INVOLVED runs: if you participated in the RfC, it means you are involved, which fundamentally means you are unable to neutrally assess the consensus of the discussion. JBchrch talk 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have not, and have no intention of, acting in an admin capacity in this matter. I thought I had made it clear that I was involved in the discussion but that must have gotten lost in one of the several rewrites I did (at one point I had about three paragraphs worth of text, whether or not the comment I posted is helpful it's more helpful than that would have been). Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• This is interesting. If I understand you correctly, JBchrch, you're saying that if k admins take part in a discussion or an RfC strictly in their capacity as editors then when the discussion/RfC is challenged those k admins have no right to offer their opinions in the challenge even though they're still offering input strictly as editors. Wouldn't this reduce, in general, the right of admins to take part in discussions as editors? I'd think treating admins and their input as something of a "big deal" goes straight up against WP:NOBIGDEAL. (I'm not making any reference to opinions offered here by specific admins or how this challenge progresses.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  Clearly there's a misunderstanding here. All I'm saying is that admins who have taken part to a discussion should disclose that they have done so when they choose to express their views on a closure challenge at AN. JBchrch talk 14:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have boldly added a couple sentences to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE about this. Levivich 17:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• The title of the section was "Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner", which seems pretty clear to me. Multiple editors said they would find moving the links an acceptable second choice, but this is irrelevant if there is sufficient support for removal that the "compromise" option was not needed. Only a single editor (Skdb) indicated they only supported a move. The close was, probably unintentionally, "punishing" editors for merely mentioning a second choice had the consensus not been as strong as it was. See also the vacated close at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#RFC:_Citation_Style 1 parameter naming convention, where there was a good faith attempt by the original closer to pick a "compromise" option that turned out not necessary because there was sufficient support for one of the main proposals. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• The difference between this discussion and the citation style RFC is that there was not consensus here for the main option (or indeed any other option). Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• If another RFC is opened on the matter, we might want to use the Clarity Act as a guide, for the new RFC's question. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the RfC close. In the discussion on the closer's talk page, I advised @JBchrch: to come back with a fresh proposal which would remove or move the portal links without creating a pointless empty space in their stead, which was really the sticking point for a lot of those in opposition to the proposal. As such, I'm very disappointed that JBchrch decided to come here attempting to relitigate, rather than getting on with drafting the way forward and building WP:CONSENSUS as is the way on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I approve The Gnome's close which was well-explained and really the only viable conclusion from the discussion given the disparate proposals made. I hope we can end this and get to work on a way forward sooner rather than later.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• It's not fair to characterize a close challenge as "attempting to relitigate", especially when half a dozen editors are disagreeing with the close on the closer's talk page. You wouldn't be disappointed if you disagreed with the close. Levivich 13:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Amakuru I'm not going to do anything of the sort, actually. You see, this process has been somewhat stressful and, given how my life looks right now, I've been questioning whether I should continue to shepherd it after this discussion (irrespective of its outcome). This disgraceful comment of yours is all I needed to make a decision. So I'm sorry to inform you that if you want to "work on a way forward", you're gonna have to find someone else. JBchrch talk 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, the discussion being discussed here was never an actual WP:RFC. No RfC template was present, and the discussion was never added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The proposition of such a major change to Main page should actually go through the RfC process, to encourage more users and readers to contribute and to receive input from a variety of such people. Also, as the proposal was worded, it came across as a survey, rather than an actionable matter. This is in part per where it states, "Survey (Portal links)" at the very top of the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it's what I said above and what @Levivich also addressed in more detail. I should note that, to the best of my knowledge, RfCs are not supposed to be launched without prior discussion, and I was certainly not going to launch a VPR RfC about the Main page out of the blue myself. My VPR proposal was supposed to simply launch an informal discussion about my idea. Then, it was WP:CENT-listed and attracted project-wide !votes. As for the "survey", it has become some sort of standard format for RfCs, so I'm not sure why it would affect the actionability of this discussion. In any case, I have no strong views on how the non-RfC-isation of the VPR discussion should affect the outcome hereof. JBchrch talk 15:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also, I will just note that you are not neutral in this matter since you !voted in the discussion. This is not meant to push aside your comment, just to point it out for the purposes of this AN closure review. JBchrch talk 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is an RFC going to be opened? If none hadn't actually occurred. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is this a question for me? I personally have no strong views on this, but there have been suggestions of that kind at User talk:The Gnome § Main page closure. JBchrch talk 16:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Since you're the main challenger to a discussion that was closed which wasn't an RFC. Yes, I'm asking you. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Request closure I've unarchived this request and evaluated the discussion above. This comment is my summary of the discussion. I want to thank The Gnome for their good work and responses to many inquiries. First, there is a consensus here that the messy underlying discussion was still valid, and that "adulterated" is not the best way to describe it. We should respect the time committed by the 47 editors who commented. Second, the original discussion appears to have determined that the portal links are little used and don't belong at the top of the page, at least not all of them. This was the strongest reason given because it respects what's best for our readers—not cluttering the UI with infrequently selected links. The discussion was not ideal because some of the RfC formalities were not followed. Nevertheless, that imperfection is not so bad that it cannot be corrected. The result should be to remove the portal links from the home page banner. There can be a follow up discussion, preferably with all the RfC formalities followed, to determine if some or all of the portal links should be placed somewhere else on the home page, such as lower down on the page. I recommend having a discussion to work out the most popular options and then hold an RfC to choose among them. Would an admin please close this discussion and implement the result? Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for uninvolved admins

I am aware that I'm being a PITA right now, but I think it would really be valuable if at least one admin who has not participated to the VPR discussion accepted to express their views on the closure. I think the community would appreciate it. JBchrch talk 10:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

We can see three topics below this one how the community appreciates work of uninvolved admins willing to perform difficult closures. Good luck with finding one.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Don’t archive until it’s closed

I plan keep this thread open until somebody deals with it. It would be disrespectful to ignore the input of 47 editors and let this go away without a decision. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 12 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vladislav Davydenko 2

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.

---

Need someone to take a look at it. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:47, 14 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.

Overzealous antispam filter

Hello,

The official website of Parimatch seems to be global dot parimatch dot com. The infobox has another website instead which looks like a parent company. However the correct website is blocked by an antispam filter (it is also blocked on this noticeboard). Can someone make an exception to the filter on this specific article? Thank you and apologies if this is not the right place to ask. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wikibusines/Bodiadub article. MER-C 20:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Holy hell what a mess. I've removed several sources that either didn't even mention the company name, or are clearly not reliable sources. This article needs a sweep. What happens to it after that, who knows. One of the worst link spam articles I've seen in a few months. Calling all editors.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• To answer initial question, you'd need to make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP of Mariam Memarsadeghi

I know it probably should go to the noticeboard but I'm also asking for protection and possibly block of a user. Mariam Memarsadeghi has written in Twitter that she was being portrayed as "war activist" in Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/memarsadeghi/status/1493657858163896321 and it seems some IPs have been vandalizing her article that went unnoticed. Also User:Sepehrsalar seems to have been adding copy-vio material to the article and other issues (including the "war activist" section) maybe they need to be blocked from this article? Ladsgroup^overleg 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I did the things. El_C 10:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Artem Avetisyan

In the new page feed. Wasn't sure to mess with the article, but does this have a botched AfD? I am somewhat confused. Govvy (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A PROD got turned into an AFD by an IP, so they likely couldn't create the AFD itself Special:Diff/1072070171/1072070837. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A proper AfD has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artem Avetisyan using Twinkle. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ijtihad Article

Hello, what happened to the "Ijtihad" article in wikipedia? When I type "Ijtihad" currently, it only redirects to the Ulema. It used to be a separate article.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk)shadowwarrior8 12:35 pm, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ijtihad was moved to Legal authority in Islamic law, and the redirect was changed to point to Ulama. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac. I have changed the article title to Independent Legal Reasoning in Islamic law since it is a better English translation. Could you please re-direct Ijtihad to that site?

Ulama refers to Islamic scholarship and legal authority. While the article on Ijtihad refers to the Independent Legal Reasoning employed by the legal scholars. shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Y I fixed the new article title so it uses sentence case (Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law) and redirected Ijtihad to that article again. @Shadowwarrior8: this is not the right noticeboard for this type of query. In the future, please consider using the teahouse instead. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass sockpuppets on Novares Group

Hello dear English-speaking wikipedians,

SPI detected mass socks on the article about Novares Group (on fr-wp) - there may be some on your side too fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/février 2022#Novares Group - 16 février. I blocked them all on fr-wp and protected the page to stop them. Best regards, --- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bédévore. Thank you very much for this report. The article here has been subject to disruptive editing by six newly created accounts. I have semi-protected the article for a month. I do not see much value in blocking the accounts. They seem to be throwaway accounts used once or at most three times, and then abandoned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User interface consistency

Hello, administrators.

While coming upon some unregistered usernames, I saw some MediaWiki messages saying “(insert username here) is not registered on this wiki. Please check CentralAuth to see if the account is registered on other wikis”.

However, I’m specifically bothered by the inconsistency. Two messages on these unregistered accounts have the Central Auth linked to meta (links are below), but one links to our local CentralAuth.

Also, just under an hour ago (as of the time of writing), Xaosflux edited one interface message, specifying clarity.

So now, here is the question: Should we make all in one format, where it links to meta and has that clarity message (“the account” rather than “it”) or do we link the CentralAuth to our local CentralAuth? Thanks.

(The links are below for courtesy.) MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist - Links to meta, states “it” rather than “the account”.

MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist-view — Links to meta, states “the account”.

MediaWiki:Contributions-userdoesnotexist — Links to our local CentralAuth, states “it” rather than the account”.

Note: This is not on the interface admins’ noticeboard, since these messages can be edited by all admins. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Since these are already all local customization I don't really care one way or another and will process edit requests for small verbiage changes if opened. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something that you can leave an edit request for and an admin can do WP:BOLDly. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Organized interference at Wikipedia by the Zemmour campaign for President of France

 Courtesy link: WP:VPM § WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President

This is just a heads-up and a request to monitor a discussion at VPM concerning a developing situation that could have serious negative consequences for Wikipedia if not contained, and which I believe will inevitably end up at ANI, regarding the organized interference at Wikipedia by the digital arm of the Eric Zemmour campaign for President of France. Developing the diffs and evidence will take time, but notifying people about this is too urgent to wait, so I opened a discussion at Village Pump instead, so you can start to follow the discussion there, until such time when the evidence merits bringing it to ANI. Note that there are already at least ten articles in the French press already reporting on infiltration of Wikipedia by the Zemmour campaign. You can follow the discussion at VPM here. Thanks Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And there is already an active discussion underway at ANI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Single purpose account KyleLover69

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

---

Would an admin please take a look at the actions of KyleLover69. I believe this editor is NOTHERE as their only actions are to add a song by what would be a redlink band to the Big Iron article page. Attempts to engage have gone nowhere [10]. Springee (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit: * AR on a Sling (2020) by Kyle Rittenhouse Tribute Band. The user name: KyleLover69. The action: {{uw-nothereblock}}. El_C 14:08, 18 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.

Shraddhasrivastava1590

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.

---

• Shraddhasrivastava1590 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Possible undisclosed paid editing. Unwilling to communicate and repeatedly attempting to create the same page in mainspace. 1 2 3. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Page creations match those of Bikrookanpurgangster, blocked for cross-wiki abuse. Hemantha (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Confirmed by checkuser and blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 18 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.

Emil Shahin article keeps coming back

An article on this subject (a singer with a penchant for self-promo, IMHO) has appeared several times under slightly different spellings, so it's not immediately obvious; the latest one is awaiting AfC review at Draft:Emil Shahin. I've previously moved an AfD on this, which resulted in delete. I could of course just reject this draft and/or request CSD on it, but I think something a bit more heavyhanded may be needed, as otherwise this seems to just keep cropping up and taking more time and effort to push back. Any advice? Ta, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

scanning the Azerbaijani sourcing, same depth of sourcing issues remain from your AfD last year. I will reject the AfC, but agree that something broader is needed. Star Mississippi 17:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cheers @Star Mississippi: appreciated. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

happy to help. I did a little digging, and Ellali2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Simplellali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also have some overlap on Aybaniz Ismayilova. They appear unrelated to Rza835 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose deleted contributions feature a few versions of Shahin and was a part of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Repeated_CSD_tag_deletion,_meatpuppetry,_et_al.. cc @Curbon7 in case they have anything to add based on history. Star Mississippi 21:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Eternal Castle sandbox restoration

I'm not sure if this is the best venue to ask this, but I wanted to ask if an administrator was able to restore the The Eternal Castle article in my personal work space, the sandbox, in order to try to improve it. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, NoonIcarus. That sandbox page was only three sentences long and was very poorly referenced. My suggestion is to start from scratch. Find several independent reliable secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Format those sources into references. Then, write original prose that summarizes what those sources say. That is the proper way to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Of course, I totally agree. I can't remember the status the article was in. Thank you! --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Unblock appeal of JsfasdF252

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.

---

JsfasdF252 has a community imposed partial block from most of the project. As a courtesy I am copying their unblock appeal to this page. I make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I knew what I did wrong on Wikipedia, such as creating hybrid templates, messing with red links, simulating article subpages, and creating confusing redirects, all in an attempt to reduce the wikicode size of articles. Even though I made these bad edits before being blocked, I also made plenty of good edits, and I submitted some successful edit requests while I was blocked. I have been editing other wikis during the block, including other Wikimedia wikis, and I think I know enough to avoid doing any of the things that led me to the block. Since the block, I have caught dozens, if not hundreds of errors on the English Wikipedia, but I haven't been able to fix them. I made some edit requests to address the issues, but it takes time for these edit requests to be fulfilled, and they only represent a slim minority of the mistakes I noticed. I also used to engage in Word Association before the block. The block has been active for 8 months now, and a lot has changed since I first received a block. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support an unblock from article-space. This user was pretty disruptive in templates and other Wikipedia processes, and I don't see much benefit to them participating there for now given what they've listed in their unblock request, so I think limiting them to articles makes sense. If they can edit articles without disruption, then I'd support looking at the other blocks too, upon request. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link of sanction: [11] This is really needed in an appeal, to provide background... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I see a typo in my closing statement; "I will not" must be "I will now" (and this is what I have actually done).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given Elli's familiarity with the case and excellent suggestion, I would agree. Everyone deserves a second chance, and this is likely the best way to go about it. Article space only, no Templates, no meta space except for normal exceptions (reporting or being reported at AN/ANI/AE/ARB). We can look at lifting everything in 6 months if all goes well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification of the partial block to allow editing of articles. The editor has acknowledged their errors quite frankly, and presumably now understands that their efforts "to reduce the wikicode size of articles" was disruptive and unwelcome. I encourage the editor to focus on improving article content for the benefit of our readers rather than editing articles to try to make the wikicode leaner. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification Was this restriction genuinely not enforced by the pban mechanism? If so, that's another tick in the column along with Elli's reasoning the appeal. I'd support Elli's proposed modification, with the user able to make additional appeals after six months. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  It was enforced, see above.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks, although while it would have further supported the case, I still think ROPE applies sufficiently to go with the proposal Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Preventing automatic archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I've unarchived this discussion as still needing a proper close. Isabelle ^🔔 03:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification to allow mainspace edits. If problematic behaviour re-appears this can be easily reinstated, so it's worth giving a second chance of sorts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• It looks like there's a strong consensus. Could an admin please close this? Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 17 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.

Topic ban appeal (Solavirum)

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 file a formal request to lift my AA2 topic ban. I was sanctioned more than a year ago, based on this report. Following the initial imposing of the TBAN, I have also violated it due to a lack of understanding of WP:BROAD. As a result, I had agreed to avoid a broader variety of topics in August ("related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc.").

I've been away from these topics for a long time. In the meantime, I've contributed extensively to other WP:VG, WP:RELI, and WP:MILHIST-related topics. I've expanded and nominated two articles concerning medieval Middle Eastern monarchs (Fakhr al-Mulk Ridwan and Irtash), as well as a WP:VG article titled Castle Wolfenstein. I've also significantly expanded (about nine times in size) Hòa Hảo. Nine new articles were created (as seen here, starting from article number 133) by me. Apart from Hòa Hảo, I expanded numerous articles, like 2021 Erbil rocket attacks.

The articles I've presented are, in my opinion, examples of improved WP:RS usage on my part. I'd love to go back and edit the articles that fall inside the TBAN's purview, as well as successfully nominate new GANs on the subject. The TBAN covers my country of birth and the region where I live; normally, these are the most familiar topics for me. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 11:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• As an WP:AE topic ban, pretty sure you need to go back to AE to appeal it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox, oh, WP:UNBAN states that it should be at ANI, which is why I came here. I could move it if it's wrong. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The UNBAN section you indicated applies to community-applied bans, not AE bans. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors indicate that appeals can take place at either AE or AN? DanCherek (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Beeblebrox, they're in the right place (one of the right places). WP:AN is an acceptable alternative for appealing this ban, per these instructions. There is a link to them in the topic ban notification that the user received. Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

I'm new here, you can't expect me to know everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're only new compared to User:Bishzilla. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

• Support. Solavirum has written a good unban request, and has been editing constructively in other areas during the ban. After one year, that is really enough for lifting the ban, IMO. Pinging El C, who was pretty much the only admin engaging with the original AE report. Bishonen | tålk 22:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
• Comment - Looking at the report, Solavirum was topic banned for nationalist pov-push and Armenian genocide denial, or rather genocide denial tropes. Interestingly, they also created, quote, "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim." userbox in az-wiki, where they are a sysop. Since the tban, they violated it multiple times and have been blocked for those violations as well. At this point, blaming the violations on "lack of understanding of WP:BROAD" is rather unconvincing to say the least, imo. Side note maybe not as important to admins unfamiliar with AA, but AA has been suffering heavily from various social media meat collaborations/campaigning (I can link them, but AN isn't an appropriate venue) in the past and especially recently, those concerns were brought up by others in the motion discussion as well. It seems like Solavirum himself isn't far off from the off-wiki collaborations, [12]. This should be also taken into account, imo, given the situation in AA with meats/socks and whatnot. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I already made this mistake with GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek, so not again. In the recent past, I've indulged in certain lenient impulses to the detriment of the project. I still try to err on the side of leniency, but with a better measure of reasonableness (I'd hope).

I'd estimate that lifting this sanction will just add to an already pitched WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've spoken about some of the issues plaguing these non-ARBPIA Western Asia set of DSs in my latest ARCA (link), as clunky as that request was. I'm in opposition at this time. El_C 01:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I've waited a year since my TBAN and worked on many articles from other WikiProjects, with several becoming GAs. I don't think it's fair to oppose the appeal because of what other people did. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm opposing because I think you'll continue to engage in BATTLEGRUND conduct, including in such sensitive areas as the Armenian genocide. El_C 09:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I've never edited the genocide article and I don't intend to do so, its out of my scope really. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say page, I said areas. For example, the Armenian_genocide_denial page is one such obvious area (diff). El_C 10:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm slightly more optimistic about this user, El_C. They're a lot younger than the two people you mentioned (more room to grow).
Still, I get where you're coming from. If needed, we could just add a clause allowing unilateral imposition of the topic ban for the next 6 months or something (for like battleground behavior). Thoughts on that type of thing? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you can tell their age. Also, not sure how decisive it is, because growth can happen really at any age. El_C 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It was mentioned in one of the AN/I threads. Solavirum started editing quite young, I believe if I recall correctly. Still probably isn't an adult yet either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

MJL, this is not something I care to speculate on or rely on one's memory for. If Solavirum wants to bring up his age, then maybe it can be factored in. But I think it's inappropriate for anyone else to choose to do so on his behalf. El_C 06:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, during one of the reports in February 2021, my exact age was disclosed without my approval by another user who received one-way interaction ban for doing the said thing. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@El_C: Fair enough. My apologies to Solavirum for speculating. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Solavirum:, if you have a diff or diffs, feel free to email em to me for WP:REVDEL. El_C 02:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment is the wider topic ban still the one in force? Since if it is, even if you've done good work at 2021 Erbil rocket attacks, it seems questionable for you to be editing it as an attack blamed by several parties on Iran (although relating to their dispute with the US rather than any of their neigbours or internal issues), indeed something you added [13]. Can User:El C comment on whether the topic ban was intended to cover actions or alleged actions of the Iranian government? Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it says Iranians, so... But Solavirum is the one who wrote the wider sanction rather than receive a 3rd block (blocks that came after multiple warnings). Anyway, I'd caution against supporting without doing a bit of research some on this user's past incidents, even if these aren't laid out cogently in this appeal. Because if and/or when it goes wrong, in increments, it may prove very labour intensive to reach the point when sanctions get reinstated again. Don't count on a magic switch.

The problem, again, as mentioned in my ARCA (linked above), is that many users edit disruptively in some, most, or all of the three non-ARBPIA Western Asia DSs (WP:AA2, WP:KURDS, WP:ARBIRP), and topic areas not covered so much or at all (more on these in the ARCA). So overlaps, holes in the overlaps. I'm finding it challenging to connect these more general observations with this particular appeal, but the connection is there, and I feel it's a strong one. El_C 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, El_C, I worked on the article several months before the wider topic ban was imposed. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 16:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that now. In fairness, looking at it now, I think you've done some good work on that page (major expansion diff). El_C 17:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I missed that as well. Your contributions to 2021 Erbil rocket attack do seem to have been good. I have some suggestions I'll post on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to lifting it at this time. I expect to see at least one solid year of no violations whatsoever. It hasn't even been six months in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Like Beeblebrox, I oppose removing this topic ban at this time. The editor has been blocked in the last year for disruption in this highly contentious topic area; and on another Wikimedia site (where they are an administrator), they created an Armenian genocide denialist userbox. I lack confidence that they will not engage in Armenian/Azerbaijani nationalist POV pushing. Better for them to work on areas of the encyclopedia that do not provoke their nationalist feelings. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: I almost thought from your comment you meant Solavirum created the userbox on azwiki since the topic ban was imposed. However, I think that you are referring to this one? That was (nearly) four years ago.
  @Solavirum: I'm not currently supporting this appeal, but can you state definitively whether or not you stand behind that userbox? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Cullen328, I created that userbox in 2018, though I do not stand by it, and I remember removing it from my userpage (more than) a year or so ago. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 18:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • MJL, to be precise, no, I don't agree with the things I believed in four years ago. Back in the day, as seen with my contributions, my wiki-activity was focused almost solely on AzWiki, where the genocide denial is the norm (and an obligation in a way). I had no access to Western academia or English sources, and Azerbaijani historiography/society denies the genocide. I did a bad thing in 2018, though a lot of have changed since and my knowledge about the topic is now in a better shape. I don't deny the Armenian genocide. There was a meta case about AzWiki in 2019, it was about the genocide denial, and the article concerning it having "so-called" in its title. In the same period, AzWiki users proposed to re-add "so-called" to the genocide article, where I opposed the proposal. In Azerbaijan, recognizing the genocide is a problem for one's safety, and doing that publicly in Azerbaijani Wikipedia, which is also monitored, would've been dangerous. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 05:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Like. I think that comment buys a lot of goodwill. I can see myself supporting an appeal in the not too distant future, or just lifting my own sanction outright (probably easiest). El_C 06:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
        • @El C:, I want to raise attention to a few things I find very troubling about that comment. One, Solavirum is using the 2019 vote as an example of their views on the Armenian Genocide having changed, when in fact, as ZaniGiovanni pointed out, their vote states

• On the contrary , it is similar to this clause in the Wikimedia Commons: "Don't tell readers that the topic is great, tell them in a neutral way what the person is doing and what they have achieved, and give them a chance to make their own decisions." We must make the reader understand that this genocide is fabricated.

That seems to indicate to me both that Solavirum's views on the genocide may not have changed, and more concerningly, that they are making intentionally misleading arguments here to get their topic ban removed.

The other troublesome nature of that comment is Solavirum indicating that they could not recognize the genocide on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia due to it risking their safety. What is there to prevent the same pressure from affecting the neutrality of their edits here? Nothing has changed in the Azerbaijani government's authoritarianism since than and edits that are made on the English wikipedia are subjective to that same danger, so I fail to see how Solavirum can be an unbiased editor on related topics here. I also find that defense of their genocide denial highly questionable because if Solavirum disagreed with genocide denial and such danger existed, why didn't they simply leave the topic alone? Nothing compelled them to make edits in favor of genocide denial. Achemish (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I continue to oppose this appeal because I remain deeply concerned about highly nationalistic editing in this specific topic area, and I fear that this editor will fall into that trap. Cullen328 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, shit. El_C 02:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, keeping in mind WP:ROPE. If the ban will be reimposed, it will likely last several years nex time... traed lightly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I am astounded that Solavirum has the nerve to approach this forum after so short a period of time. His time spent in disgrace and exile has been wasted if the grounds of his appeal are to be believed; at no point does he express remorse for his actions. So he has been a good boy on unrelated topics; I remain unimpressed - even the pagans do as much. His rehabilitation should only proceed once it has been clearly demonstrated that he (1) Acknowleges that he has done wrong, (2) that his actions have hurt people and the Wiki project in general, (3) that he promises to never repeat those hurtful actions again. Having had a few dealings with Solavirum on Artsakh-related topics, I am of the firm opinion that he fulfills none of the above criteria. Just look at his intervention on International Airport: no amount of patient explaining would convince him of the reasons for UNDUE. He just didn't want to relent. In this, he was aided and abetted by his chum CuriousGolden - the usual tag team. CuriousGolden has since received a ban as a user of socks. Thanks to the services of a third party, Solavirum eventually relented on the airport. I have seen no evidence that this bias has been eliminated. I very much doubt that he is at all capable of doing so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Laurel Lodged: "So he has been a good boy on unrelated topics; I remain unimpressed - even the pagans do as much." (emphasis mine): can you please explain this, it comes across as some kind of religious hatred against atheists or people of different faiths but perhaps you meant something else? Fram (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep calm Fram. It's a biblical allusion. Most educated westerners would be assumed to know the phrase from Matthew 5:46: "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?". No offence was intended to pagans. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Uh, most educated westerners won't recognise a random misquoted insult to non-Christians. Your assumption is rather bigoted or provincial. Please don't add such random garbage in discussions, it doesn't help at all. Fram (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Most educated westerners would know that there is a difference between an allusion and a quotation. But all this has nothing to do with Solavirum and everything to do with our past clashes on another issue. Nobody needs to see these unpleasant displays. Concentrate on finding proof that La Tene culture was established in the Republic of Austria. That's a better use of your time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice strawman there to deflect from your Christian POV insults. I never stated that, so no need to find proof for it either; you on the other hand posted a random allusion to an irrelevant and insulting Bible verse, and clearly see no problem with this. Bah. Fram (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. You left so many open goals, it was difficult to decide on the best one to shoot into. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Your assumption is rather bigoted or provincial. Provincial, an adjective whose meaning is based on the assumption that people outside of major cities are unsophisticated and narrow-minded. Are you insulting rural people? You're making a mountain out of a molehill, just as me hypothetically attacking you for the use of the word provincial would be. Modulus12 (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You´re right, "provincial" was the wrong choice of words, I meant the more appropriate "parochial". Fram (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Per the above answer to my question. It took a lot of bravery for Solavirum to speak up about this, but I'm glad he did because people here need to be aware of the problems NPOV Azeri editors are struggling with right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

MJL, I would also like to commend your bravery for describing an editor banned for extreme POV-pushing as having problems of NPOV Azeri editors. It doesn't work when you state opinions directly opossing the facts. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kevo327: Did you not read the part where Solavirum pushed back against Armenian genocide denial on azwiki at great personal risk? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

MJL I don't know about others, but I read that discussion/vote in az-wiki. There are 11 other Oppose votes besides Solavirum, and again interestingly, Solavirum's vote states, and I quote:

• On the contrary , it is similar to this clause in the Wikimedia Commons: "Don't tell readers that the topic is great, tell them in a neutral way what the person is doing and what they have achieved, and give them a chance to make their own decisions." We must make the reader understand that this genocide is fabricated.

Just something crucial to point out, you know, since you brought up that vote. Also, I don't think you're hardly uninvolved in this case to cast a vote. My deepest apologies if I'm wrong, but it seems like you've defended Solavirum continuously during various AN/I / AE cases, tban violation cases, etc. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is out of context. What it actually means that: "[if you want to claim that the genocide is fabricated], you have to prove it in the article's text". Virtually no one there recognized the genocide and I had to achieve a consensus somehow to have the word "so-called" (qondarma) removed from the title. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Translations of the highlighted text (Biz elə etməliyik ki, oxucu bu soyqırımın qondarma olduğunu anlasın.) disagree with you: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Pretty sure in all the cases, you're addressing other users and explaining your vote, so that "we" should make the user understand the genocide is fabricated.

You're free to provide other translations of the text with links. Reality wouldn't change from it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

El C I think you should take a look at the above comment by Solavirum. I've used virtually every translation platform available and nothing matched what Solavirum's claimed text is.

This is their full vote text from the discussion/vote, feel free to translate yourself:

• Əleyhinə bu da, Vikimübaliğə qaydalarındakı bu bəndə oxşayır: "Oxuyuculara mövzunun möhtəşəm olduğunu deməyin, onlara şəxsin nə etdiyini və nə uğurlar qazandığını bitərəf şəkildə söyləyin və öz qərarlarını verməyə imkan yaradın". Biz elə etməliyik ki, oxucu bu soyqırımın qondarma olduğunu anlasın. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• This case can be settled by Solavirum himself. He just has to say if he still believes that "We must make the reader understand that this genocide is fabricated.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Any particular reason that you wish to return to contributing to articles related to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh? The last time I dealt with your edits you added an "Azerbaijani victory" to the Maraga massacre. Have your values changed significantly since then? AntonSamuel (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  AntonSamuel, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. I, unfortunately, had relied on Azerbaijan's POV in Maragha, there's virtually nothing about the tragedy and the only version shown is a "simple military operation". I acknowledge that it was wrong and I don't stand by it anymore. I believe that I've changed since that incident and once again can productively engage in the topic, I want to contribute to the topic yet again. Thanks to Wikilib and other platforms, I now have access to better sources. I'd want to expand and promote a number of topics that aren't even linked to Armenia, but Azerbaijan, and to put my newfound experience gained while working on other topics to good use. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sympathetic to your concerns. I, unfortunately, had relied on Azerbaijan's POV in Maragha

  It seems like you rely on Azerbaijani POV/sources quite often. The propagandistic edit in question is literally from last year (diff). Where are all these "Western Academia" claims of yours since 2018? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

How about a pledge not to interfere with anything controversial with regard to the topic area with regard to the tensions that exist - period - you've shown no reason why you specifically would be able to deal with the area more than others. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Not sure how enforceable a pledge like that would be? Like there is no clearly defined line between controversial and not controversial, and it's why the whole country is under DS regime rather than only a specific set of articles. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, RE: Maraga massacre — now I'm remembering (diff). That was wild. Eep. El_C 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Solavirum, I have two questions for you. First, is it true that on your Wikimedia Commons user page, you freely disclose your real world identity? If that is correct, is it also true that, under your real world identity. you have tried to canvass pro-Azerbaijani individuals to edit Wikipedia, in violation of the behavioral guideline Stealth canvassing. I am referring to posts on Facebook and Reddit posted under the name you seem to have revealed on Commons, that urge Azerbaijani individuals to come to Wikipedia to support your nationalist POV. If my statements are inaccurate in any way, I apologize. If what I have written is accurate, please explain. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

To first question, I had done it on my Meta page. Second one, I don't think so? May I ask, with all respect, where does this assumption stem from? --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I'd like to drop the appeal and wait for a longer period of unviolated sanction. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. El_C 14:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• To Closing Admin I was aware of a lot of the details about Solavirum prior to this - his age, how he was recruited (by adults who ought to know better) with a lot of other minors to engage in Azeri-POV pushing, his mockery of Armenian deaths, his genocide denial etc. All quite sickening. They will come as a shock to some admins. So rather than let this slink off into the night by a withdrawal, is it not abundantly clear by now that a wider ban is needed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 19 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.

Admin has removed my account's extended confirmed user rights

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

---

• Jonathunder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights · renames · global renames)
• Special:UserRights/Righanred

Hi all, a few days ago I got an alert that stated that the user Jonathunder removed my account as an extended confirmed user. I'm not sure why they would have done this unless it was an accident because my account passes the 30 days tenure and 500 edits requirement per WP:XC. Jonathunder has made edits since they removed my extended confirmation and have not responded to my message on their talk page that I made on Feb 6. I am hope that by bringing up this matter here that I can either: A. Have an accidental change to my account rights reverted, or B. Figure out what I did wrong. Hope y'all have a plesant day. --Righanred (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My immediate thought is to wonder why Jonathunder has not responded to the various messages left, and why removal of a perm you attained almost a year ago received no actual reason in the userrights change, and why it shouldn't just be re-added. I'm not going to wheel-war with them, but it's very tempting to reinstate purely from a "lack of reason" perspective. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If requires community consensus to avoid wheel-war, count me as supporting restoring rights absent an explanation from Jonathunder.Slywriter (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Very disappointed by the lack of communication, and I'm not seeing anything EC-remove-worthy. I did notice that this isn't the first time Jonathunder has removed EC,[18] in case that provides any clue. Am I right in thinking those people still don't have EC? I think all we require here is have a few more people check for any concerns, before we assume it was a mistake. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They do not. I'm rather more interested in this granting of both Confirmed and EXCon for a brand-new user who then proceeded to make a single edit to an unprotected page (and has never edited since). Primefac (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Especially since the page in question has never had any protection applied. How does changing the image on a low-traffic uncontroversial insect stub require any permissions to "help a new user"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and restored the right; Jonathunder seems to edit sporadically, was asked about this days ago with no response, and just because Righanred is being gracious about it doesn't mean we have to sit on our hands. I look forward to an explanation when Jonathunder resumes editing. It's quite possible the other two editors should also have extended confirmed restored, but I've run out of time to look into their edits, at least for a few hours. Any takers? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks everyone for the fast response.--Righanred (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Administrator note another admin has already restored this, I'm supportive that the no-reason logged removal should be reversed in this case without this beeing a WHEEL, at least during Jonathunder's absence from this discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It wouldn't actually be wheel-warring to revert - that requires reinstating a reverted action (here, the removal is the initial action, it's not a revertion). That said, I would support its return, but would like to hear the admin's response on their return Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unrelated, but when going to Jona's talkpage to look at Righanred's situation, I saw there was another notification for an RFD on The Andrew formerly known as Prince. It's a redirect he created about two weeks ago as a joke, I presume? He's made some odd choices recently. — Moe Epsilon 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Here's a discussion about one user's rights being removed: User_talk:Jonathunder#Edit_rights. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ok so I did some more digging and I noticed that the one edit that Jonathunder made on the day he took my extended confirmation rights away was an edit to Andrew Cuomo changing the lead image, claiming that there was "no consensus for other photo with odd expression". I don't do a lot on Wikipedia except for updating lead photos from time-to-time so I went back to see if I had made an edit on that page and sure enouch, I changed that article's lead image on 21:48, 30 November 2021. Did he remove my rights out of spite for changing the lead image of an article three months earlier? And isn't no one changing the lead image for three months a consensus in its own right per WP:EDITCON? As you can see, I'm new to this lol.--Righanred (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming good faith, I would guess that he perceived it as vandalism, and removed extended confirmed to prevent you editing more controversial articles. Leaving aside whether that's fair, the process was definitely not. Theknightwho (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I nominated the Prince Andrew redirect when looking at this posting out of curiosity and seeing the edit history. Is this another case of an old (confirmed in 2006) admin maybe a little out-of-touch with current norms, as detailed above in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#We_need_the_ARS ? ValarianB (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's unlikely it would have been noticed otherwise, since Jonathunder popped back in to regrant himself autopatrolled in December. – Joe (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think at this point there's enough oddities going on, and weird choices, that Jonathunder kinds should explain these decision to the community. The rights thing that started this thread looks like a very odd punitive action for a very good faith edit to replace a photo with a more up to date one. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree and the idea that this is a legacy admin "a little out-of-touch with current norms" looks weak. The sequence of edits that Righanred posted is very concerning and "Administrators are expected to never use the tools to gain advantage in an editorial dispute" has been a norm for as long as I've been around. I believe it extends right back to 2004, so this isn't an expectation he wasn't aware of. I don't want to impute malice to what could plausibly be oversight but we really need to hear from Jonathunder before he makes any other administrative actions. I think that's the very least we should expect here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Jonathunder got their admin stripes only 5 months before I did, so that's not really an argument. There are lots of us around from those days that are up to date on what the rules are. Are mistakes occasionally made? Sure, but they're acknowledged and learnt from. All being said, Jonathunder doesn't seem to use the admin tools very often, not that that's a crime. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• The two other users Jonathunder had removed EC from were BC1278 and Darcourse. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Think they should be restored, if they asked at WP:PERM we'd put a call out to the removing admin, but barring some good explanation would re-grant. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm seriously tempted to restore them. Darcourse has edited as recently as today. BC1278 hasn't edited yet in February, but was active on January 31. There seems to be no reason for them not to have user groups that are supposed to be automatic. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, I did just restore them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ONUnicorn: That restoration of rights seems completely justified. Jonathunder appears to have removed Darcourse's EC rights solely because Darcourse restored an Oxford comma (diff) several hours after Jonathunder removed it at Paul Allen (diff). Jonathunder removed the Oxford comma again (diff) and EC rights (log) without comment. Based on the Interaction Analyzer, this is their only direct interaction. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• It might be worth adding to this conversation, that not all editors that got the mop long ago and don't edit much make 'weird choices'. Jeepday (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• As a longstanding PERM admin, to my knowledge, reversal of automatic EC is not something that I have ever seen done. I can't find any policy guidance on it one way or another. Regardless, just with any sanction, there needs to be clear violations, a clear explanation, and a clear demonstrable preventative aspect to the action, and I'm not seeing any of that here. The user was not even editing ECP articles when their EC flag was revoked, in essence partially blocking them from all 8891 ECP articles. Could you imagine if an admin just partially blocked someone from editing a list of over 3,000 articles, randomly spread across various subject areas, without any log entry or any explanation? There'd be an emergency desysop in a heartbeat, so please let's keep the gravity of this action in mind here. Also I note a clear pattern of out-of-touch permissions changes, including stripping others of EC (one without any log entry or explanation, one because he thought they "didn't need it", not because they did anything wrong), granting ECP to an account with one edit, and granting Confirmed to non-autoconfirmed accounts without good reason (he confirmed MeganKalene31 after unblocking her for copyvios (which a second admin disagreed with), and he confirmed Lanelsen "per request", an account that had only insignificantly edited in a sandbox and had never communicated on-wiki.) Not good. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  No comment on this situation, but I do know that ECP has been removed from people who are clearly gaming the system, often for PAID or DS reasons. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have not looked too much into this specific situation, but I know I have seen editors get EC revoked following a community discussion on AN/I or the like. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Swarm: removal of ECP is rare, and when it was more tied to an arbcom remedy was even rarer, as @Barkeep49: mentioned it is normally only routinely done when someone has obviously gamed the threshold, normally with an AN(/I) thread about them, and generally with a direction of something like "once you have made 500 new non-trivial edits, you may ask for restoration at PERM, or on "my talkpage"). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is a series of disturbing actions noted above. Is it too early to discuss desysopping? We all make mistakes, but there's a real issue here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's too early to discuss desysopping. Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    • No, not Jesus... but thanks for the compliment. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
      • All of this is arguing in circles until Jonathunder responds to the above thread. It was only posted a day ago. Let's all simmer down. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. Agree with you and Flo. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Why is it too early to talk about desysopping? We have seen proof that this is not a case of a legacy admin "a little out-of-touch with current norms", but of someone who obviously should never have been let anywhere near adminship. No response can change that. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to be nice to someone who has less ability to be a good admin than my two-year-old grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Posts that register over 5.0 on the hyperbolemeter belong at ANI, not AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• It has now been a week since Righanred's request for accountability from Jonathunder. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  True, but it has also been 5 days since Jonathunder has edited. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm primarily making sure that this doesn't get archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• My own two cents is that someone who edits as infrequently as Jonathunder does right now shouldn't be using the tools because there's no possibility of accountability. If they became more active that would be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there's necessarily an issue with an admin editing sporadically, but when they are alerted to a complaint about their admin actions and do not respond promptly, that is a problem.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wandering in kinda late, noting for the record that I've revoked the use rights granted to MamaTeeth as obviously out-of-process. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• On the Andrew redirect referred to earlier,its origins seem to be this post, which I admittedly found funny. But I was bit surprised to subsequently see the RfD and more surprised to see that the redirect was created by him. Now, us mere mortals might get up to that sort of malarkey but it does seem odd that an admin does that. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have deleted the redirect. Jay (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Because of the lack of response after an extended period of time, I have filed an Arbitration Committee Request. I have done so because it has been more than two weeks since these actions, because Jonathunder has edited at least twice since being notified of this problem, and because he has not made any response. I believe that this has been a reasonable enough time period that some sort of response should be expectable. The language of WP:ADMINACCT supports this belief: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their...administrative actions. emphasis added. Due to this lack of response, I see no other avenue for escalation short of ArbCom. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:24, 20 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.

Quick apology - blocked cluebot

Just noting an apology for blocking cluebot by accident. Seddon ^talk 01:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cluebot has filed a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 22:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie on lost Ollie page

This user is attempting to block me from adding a cast member in a TV show called Lost Ollie. I have proof that the cast member is authentic. My edit was removed several times by “Some Guy from North Carolina” and “ohnoitsjamie” has put a block on me. As someone employed by the production company I am dismayed that this user is able to call into question my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:4680:A900:2DEC:365A:83E7:5025 (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You've not notified anybody about this complaint, as is required by the big red notice on the editing page, and you've provided no sources at all with either of the IPs you've been using. If you keep adding unreferenced material, you may be blocked entirely. Ohnoitsjamie's block is appropriate - you've been doing this for almost a year, and people have been remarkably patient. Personal assertions are not admissible, and if your assertion concerning your employment is correct, you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Find a source, or stop complaining about other editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two users that reverted you both noted that a source was needed in their edit summaries. (Please read WP:IMDB before attempting to use that as a source). Since you were edit-warring across two IP ranges, I partial blocked you from editing that page on both of your ranges. Further unsourced edits or edit-warring will result in an expansion of that block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Coldstreamer20 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.

---

The following appeal is made by Coldstreamer20, posted by myself. I and several others discussed it and ultimately I advised the user to submit an appeal to the Community, which they do so now.

---

I was blocked back on the 13th of January for using (what I thought at the time) as copyright images free to use on sandboxes, but not on main space pages. Now, this quickly became an issue when @JJMC89 (who I thought was a bot at the time) kept reverting the images which caused the issues. These images, I can say I knew were copyrighted, however I didn't until around the 15th or so understand the images issue on Wikipedia. After I learned the issues this could cause, I began trying to fix the issue, but was blocked while removing them in my edit. Later on, I learned (after this block) that JJ is in-fact not a bot, and a real person so we were going back-and-forth. Editors can see here the back and forth issues. So, this brings us to the issues which at the time, but now after the block realise:

• 1) JJ is NOT a bot (something I thought, because the first edit says the user is 'JJMC89 bot', and didn't see the others weren't from this bot
• 2) The reverted edits from JJ stated "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). Non-free files are only permitted in articles." Something which at the time I actually thought was just an automated message.
• 3) After realising my mistake, I saw I was going back-and-forth as I stated with JJ, not realising he was actually an admin removing copyrighted images.
• 4) Why was this an issue for me? Well, I wasn't aware at the time that I couldn't use the copyrighted images even on my Sandboxes, which I hadn't understood. After the block, I took the time to check the image issues and noticed the problems it causes and the issued I didn't understand regarding the use of the images. I thought that they were fine to be used on sandboxes because they aren't in the mainspace, but I then learned this isn't the case, and can't be used at all, ONLY on the page is for.
• 5) What can I do? Well, #1 As I stated, I took the time to check what the issue actually was, and I will admit, after the block happened because I hadn't realised JJ was not a bot and wanted to stop with the back-and-forth. #2 after I took the time to check the issues, I saw how this can be an issue and very much understand how the images can only be used on the pages they are for, and nothing else. #3 Restrictions:
  • #3A) Remove ALL images from my sandboxes, and only add them with consent of an admin or someone who wouldn't mind checking over the page first.
  • #3B) Require all pages moving from sandboxes go to draft first and be reviewed, and in that case have an admin check for image/copyright issues, which can be problems on the page and down the road.
• 6) Where does that leave me? I will admit that when this was all occurring at the beginning of the month, I honestly didn't realise that JJ wasn't a bot. As I stated, that first edit was from his bot, and immediately assumed that they were all from the bot because it was the same changes every time. This caused issues, and I can freely admit now that this wasn't just a copyright issue, but a problem because I was reverting an admin's edits. I very much know how this looks to others as if I couldn't care about JJ's authority or his good work trying to make sure copyright issues don't occur.
• 7) As I stated, I freely admit I was wrong, and not just wrong, but an idiot (frankly) and acted like a fool, not checking that it was in-fact JJ, and not a bot who was reverting the edits so that way copyright issue wouldn't occur. At the time, I had no idea that the images couldn't be used on sandboxes, but now that I know this I very much see the problem this causes and an/will cause for me and my background for edits.

I hope I've answered everything which was needed to be answered, and hope I'm able to be un-blocked, because I really want to do more on Wikipedia and have plenty to share. The images issue is a very recently problem for me, as I've typically not done much in the way of images, and made an honest mistake which unfortunately JJ took far very quickly without warning. I know that even when I had this issue occurring, I was planning on making changes to my pages and such, especially regarding copyrighted images which need to be replaced, adding my own made images, and remove myself from post-1900 military edits as per the discussions by Buckshot06. I very much want to come back though, and hopefully get rid of this stain and not do any image additions which would cause copyright issues.

Cheers, Coldstreamer20

• Note: CS20 also requested I include a link to this discussion. That discussion also links to two other discussions, most notably this request for a TBAN that are likely relevant to any editing restrictions imposed in the event of an unblock Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Discussion

• Unblock per WP:ROPE. CS20 seems to understand why they were blocked, and are making the right statements about how to proceed going forward. I'm agnostic on the TBAN noted above; the discussion seems to have been cut short after they were blocked, and I'm not sure where the community would have gone given more time. However, I think the block is obviated at this point, and we should welcome CS20 back, with the understanding that they are on a short leash with regards to copyright vios and disruption of MILHIST topics. --Jayron32 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock - Coldstreamer20, you need to understand this:- the only place that a non-free image may be used is in article space. If writing an article in a sandbox or draftspace, the image cannot be added to Wikipedia until after the article is live. If you can keep to that then there won't be a problem. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock - given the circumstances surrounding this block and the likelihood of any further problems with image-use, I think CS20 should be unblocked. That said, editing restrictions have been proposed more than once (most recently by Buckshot06), and those proposals should not continued to be de-railed. There should be a complete sounding done on whether any restrictions are needed, or if mandatory mentoring should be required. That said, I know there have been several problems with CS20's editing, but I believe he has good intentions and a desire to improve. (imo) - wolf 04:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblocking The enormous amount of errors and mistakes this user has committed across large parts of the military history space require that editing restrictions - a topic ban - be imposed before this user is unblocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Remain blocked with a note that persistent problems with editing conventions are the cause, partially per Eggishorn. I do not want to have to clean up any more of this user's mistakes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unblock with TBAN per the scope agreed in the prior conversations (milhist) - I think ROPE suggests we should unblock, but the prior conversations were very clear at showing a consensus for a TBAN so that need be a condition of any unblock. I'm just checking that @Buckshot06: is aware that a condition can be designated in an AN appeal - it would actually be unusual to try and designate it elsewhere first. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure whether this discussion *is* an AN appeal. I am not worried about the exactitudes of whatever formal process we're in. I just do not want this user editing any military-related articles, broadly defined, in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a full AN-appeal, submitted by request of CS20, although I did advise it I specifically didn't rule out a different admin making a direct choice on the indef (this does mean it comes with the flipside of, if we decline it, it will become a CBAN) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking A user who has amassed five substantive blocks in little more than three years has been given quite a lot of ROPE already. When Arbcom unblocked J-Man11/Coldstreamer20, they kind of goofed a bit. The then-current Checkuser block was successfully appealed but the prior disruptive editing block from Lourdes was apparently not. One would think that J-Man11/Coldstreamer20 would then try to step carefully. That they did not is evidenced by the two recent AN threads by Buckshot06 linked above which point to the exact type of sloppy referencing and repeated violations of the WP:CCPOL that preceded their reprieve and which they also committed while socking. The request above says all the right things but frankly is not credible. They claim that they mistook JJMC89's reverts and warnings for their bot's. Why does that mean they should have ignored those warnings? They say they thought the message from the bot was an automated message. Well, of course it was. Again, why does that mean they should have ignored it? The revert message was crystal clear and their own subsequent edit summary of "this is a sandbox, not an article" when warned against using non-free files anywhere but articles is baffling. The request explains over and over and over again that they couldn't tell JJMC89 bot from JJMC89. Are they really that unable to discern the difference between those user names? Didn't they think once to click the links? The previous blocks, warnings, AN threads, and SPI represent a sustained and repeated failure to either not read or not understand or not follow the feedback they receive. That they only mention their more fundamental errors as an afterthought of this request does not give any confidence they will suddenly start follow feedback now if unblocked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Per Eggishorn, I'm skeptical of unblocking given this user's history of WP:IDHT. I oppose unblocking unless there is a topic ban enacted to prevent the constant time suck for milhist editors dealing with this editor's non policy compliant contributions. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I would again strongly request all involved in this discussion to oppose any unblock. Coldstreamer20 should not be able to edit on this site. I have just (again) had to make a series of corrections at 24th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) which demonstrated that Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) was unaware of the sequence of events regarding the airmobile trials for 6th Armoured Brigade; skipped lightly over a decade of service which meant that the unaware reader might have thought that the airmobile role for 24 Brigade started in the 1970s while it was in Northern Ireland; misattributed the nature of what Anthony Beevor was talking of when he mentioned the brigade's new role in Inside the British Army (did not give unit/location listing, but described the new role generally, including exercises); and missed out a whole Army Air Corps regiment which was mentioned in one of his key sources (Vieuxbill, *not "Vieux-Bill*), but probably not in the Wikia listing which this user was probably copying out of. I am beyond tired of having to run around after this user making multiple fixes of fact and implication. He's had far too much WP:ROPE already. Keep him blocked!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking until he gives an account of the other four times he has been blocked for disruptive editing and what he has learned from those incidents. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 09:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

This looks like it will soon be archived without a resolution. This is not fair to either the appellant or the community. Could some kind admin please assess this discussion and give a definitive verdict for the appeal? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 18 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.

User:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles a victim of very old bad editing?

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.

---

(knowledge about history of Wikipedia:Million Award preferred) Dear admins, please have a look at User:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles 's revision history. After former wikipedian TCO's last edit to his opinion piece (23:16, 7 July 2012), there were some activities with a non-constructive result: IP 38.107.128.2 did some deletions and minutes later reverted himself. But 3 hours later 12.133.26.2 reverted 38.107.128.2's self-revert, seemingly/apparently not understanding what happened before. Since then 38.107.128.2's deletions are in the opinion piece. I do not know how to notify an IP editor in en wiki. (The other latest edits were constructive, i think: Two wikipedians corrected spelling mistakes. And the bigger adds were (as i suppose) made by an awardee who was allowed to add content. I do not intend to talk about these 3 editors.)

I think the revert-revert should be revert-revert-reverted, even after such a long time. The page is not protected, so i am able to edit it. But this should not be the task of an en-2 (de-N) 400-edit-beginner in en wiki like me. I suppose, this opinion piece is of some relevance for en Wikipedia's history. Thanks in advance. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

38.* appears to have been TCO editing logged out. He moved responses by Maunus to the talk page, and then apparently reversed himself and re-added those responses, while leaving them on the talk page. 12.* reverted that last edit, so that Maunus' responses are located on the talk page rather than in the body of the essay. This is consistent with the state in which TCO left the essay when editing logged-in (except for two typo fixes), and I do not think we need to change it further. This issue should be closed. Choess (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with closing. Where / what is the en Wikipedia template for archiving a talk thread? Everyone who knows may add the template. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:47, 20 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.

Name of the Republic of Turkey

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

---

It is looking possible that sometime this year, the country currently known as Turkey will be acknowledged to have changed its English name to Turkiye or Türkiye (matching the spelling in Turkish). However, it has not yet done so to the satisfaction of the UN, the AP, or other sources that Wikipedia follows. There is likely to be a steady stream of ECP editors who want to change this name on articles such as Turkey before there is consensus to do so. Could admins please watchlist that page (and related articles such as Name of Turkey) to watch for any disruption that may occur, and to shut down untimely RM discussions? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if it does change its name, we should retain its current name until such time as the common spelling changes. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Rockstone35 makes a good point. We follow the sources, not the country's preferences. No one in Germany calls their country "Germany", they call it Deutschland. We use the name that is common in English speaking countries, so we may eventually change it's spelling at Wikipedia, but not instantly, and not until most sources are using that spelling. See WP:COMMONNAME. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Note that COMMONNAME does not support us following the name common in English speaking countries. Instead it supports us following the name in "independent, reliable English-language sources". The only time we restrict to English speaking countries is when it comes national varieties of English. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  And even there we have the WP:COMMONALITY exception. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Since this thread was edited 3 days ago I guess I'm not necroing so I'll mention that there's actually a key reason I brought this up. People like to use Germany as an example for a lot of stuff, but AFAIK it's actually a poor example and to be blunt Dennis Brown's claim is simply wrong. Plenty of people in Germany do call their country Germany, AFAIK it's the norm when people in Germany speak English. See for example the German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle which in their English version has a section called "Germany". Or this from the Press and Information Office of the Federal Government which has plenty of references to Germany like how the chancellor said, okay from "Kyiv" and no idea if he said it in English or German, but still “Germany stands side by side with you,”. Or this from the German Bundestag (Deutscher Bundestag used in the logo only in their English version from what I can tell) which talks about the Federal Republic of Germany. The question of how we handle the situation when all English language sources in country T which doesn't normally use English except as a minor secondary language use name E but most English sources in other countries use Y is not something I want to get in to especially not on AN and doesn't affect my point about the Germany situation. A more interesting example is what we do when most English sources from non English speaking countries use M but English sources from English speaking countries use B but the answer there may be that it's fairly unlikely to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• It took many years for us to change Kiev to Kyiv. (A change I was opposed to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If only we were the sort of encyclopaedia that told readers about "Anadolis" (Anatolia), "Anadolu", "Türkistan", "Türkeli", "Rumi", "Osmanli", and what "Rum" actually meant. Like Masters 2010, p. 574 is. But we are, instead, the sort of encyclopaedia where Name of Turkey mentions the current name change twice over, once in the wrong section, devotes 4 out of its mere 20 sources to that, and has none of the history, even of the various competing alternatives for the Republic.

The fact that we have crap explanations in the first place is why we have ended up in these situations many times.

• Masters, Bruce Alan (2010). "Turkey". In A ́goston, Ga ́bor; Masters, Bruce Alan (eds.). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9781438110257.
• Everett-Heath, John (2019). "Turkey". The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192602541.
• Akşin, Sina (1999). "Factors put forward to explain independence movements in the Balkans". In Delilbaşı, Melek; Ergenç, Özer; Kayapınar, Levent (eds.). South East Europe in History, the Past, the Present and the Problems of Balkanology. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Companyğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları. p. 43. ISBN 9789754824711. […] When the Ottomans wanted to say 'Turkey' they used the Italian or Spanish form, 'Türkiye', instead of the Turkish forms Türkeli or Türkistan. […]

Sina Akşin is a history professor at the University of Ankara.

Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: If you have all these reliable sources and are aware of what all these terms mean, why not just improve Name of Turkey? It's not like there's a cabal of editors stopping you or enforcing a viewpoint, there just hasn't been enough people editing the article. There's literally nothing stopping you from just editing the article and adding this information. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Because it's someone else's turn. I wrote things at user talk:Girth Summit#Sockpupperties, user talk:Drmies#In popular culture, and Geographic Names Information System this week; and that's more than enough, not least after user talk:Drmies#February songs, Pity#Mediaeval conceptions, and Bulfinch's Mythology the week before. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 18 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.

Backlog

Huge backlog at WP:AIV

 The backlog is present when making posting this message. It may clear out if someone reviews it later

Also suggesting a range block so that no one from the 2001:FD8 range can edit. Could be a collateral damage, but this is a long term abuse case, so a hardcore range block is required. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Admin help 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.

---

Please check Al Hilal F.C.–Esteghlal F.C. rivalry history. Thanks! Lyrische (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lyrische: First, this should have been filed at WP:ANI. Second, you must explain why you want us to look at a particular page. Third, although you don't mention the editor you are complaining about, it was fairly obvious after I did look at the article, but you should have notified that user of this thread. All that said, I've blocked User:AaliJenab for repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article after multiple warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you for your guidance and action. Lyrische (talk) 13:54, 18 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.

Film series and 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.

---

Hi. I can see that almost every spin-off films are included in the lists of film series in the List of feature film series with (number) entries articles. I don't think it's actually correct, as most spin-off films are not a part of the film series, but a separate film in the same franchise as the film series. I guess that if it's a spin-off/sequel hybrid film like Men in Black: International (part of the Men in Black franchise) and Finding Dory (part of the Finding Nemo franchise), it should be included in the lists of film series since it's 50 % spin-off/50 % part of the film series. But if it's a 100 % separate spin-off film that's not a part of the film series like Hobbs & Shaw (part of the Fast & Furious franchise), Lightyear (part of the Toy Story franchise), Planes 1 and 2 (part of the Cars franchise), Lavalantula 1 and 2 (part of the Sharknado franchise), and Minions 1 and 2 (part of the Despicable Me franchise), it should not be included in the lists of film series. So I think we should either remove every 100 % spin-off films from these lists in these articles or rename the articles where the word series is replaced with the word franchise. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Karamellpudding1999 This doesn't seem to specifically require an administrator; proposals for changes to the content of the encyclopedia should be made at the Village Pump if they involve multiple articles. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 21 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.

172.58.222.209 page blanking spree?

I just blocked 172.58.222.209 for a week because they're blanking user pages like crazy, i.e. a page every few seconds. Anybody know what's going on here. Is this just random vandalism, or part of the recent botnet mess? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have reverted all his contributions. By the way, what is the botnet mess? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

See #Emergency captcha enable above. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith Ok, but I thought that to run bots here it needs the approval of the bot approval group? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A botnet, in case you didn't know, is a large network of computers typicly used in DDoS attacks and other malicious activities. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 03:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 Can a botnet be used on Wikipedia? I thought it had captcha to make accounts. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

They could possibly be ordered to make anon edits. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 03:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And what are anon edits? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits made logged out. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 03:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 Ok, got it. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BAG is not technically necessary in order to run a bot. It's them who allow you to under our rules, but the server software would allow other bots. The only way the software has to prevent a bot from doing things is the captcha; this prevents account creation and external linking by anons, but not standard edits. 2.55.174.255 (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

3RRNO policy update

Per a discussion at WT:Edit warring#3RR exception for spam, the following text has been added to WP:3RRNO: Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it was a standalone page. This shouldn't change a whole lot in common practice, but since the policy on edit warring is so central to Wikipedia's day to day functioning this is a central notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal (Grandmaster)

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 would like to appeal my indefinite AA topic ban per this report: [19] The reason for the ban was that I posted a link to a news site article in a talk page discussion. While I agree that the link that I posted was not a reliable source, I never used it in the article, nor did I propose to use it. It was only posted in the Threaded discussion, and you can check that discussion here: [20] The discussion was an RFC about the usage of the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" with regard to the city of Agdam, and I only posted that link to demonstrate that the analogy with nuclear devastation is used by sources outside of Azerbaijan, since it was claimed that the term was a propaganda by Azerbaijan. I admit that I should have paid more attention to check that the news article was a share of a post on Facebook. But everyone can make a mistake. I don't think that indefinite topic ban is an appropriate punishment for simply posting a link in a talk page discussion. The case was finally closed today by the enforcing admin himself after almost a month of deliberation. I would like to ask the community to look into this issue, and see if the topic ban was an appropriate action in this situation. Of course, I promise to be more attentive when posting links in talk page discussions. Thank you. Grandmaster 17:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Could a steward remove death threats from my azwiki page? [21] Grandmaster 00:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be BaxçeyêReş a sockpuppet. Reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose You were completely deaf to all arguments to the contrary. Your modus operandi is to deny, divert, deny, abuse, divert and deny again. Frankly I think that you should be slapped with a wider ban. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  responded here –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  For the record: Laurel Lodged is not among administrators. Brandmeister^talk 20:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  And why does that matter? The guide for appealing arbitration enforcement bans states that they can be lifted by (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA. There is no requirement that commenters here must be an administrator - if they want the ban to be reviewed only by admins the request should be made at WP:AE. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Laurel Lodged is not uninvolved editor. Grandmaster 22:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I am uninvolved in this case. I did not participate in the AN case that imposed the ban. I am participating here because I have experience of Grandmaster and his Azeri-spinning tricks. Wiki is better off without him. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  That does not make you uninvolved, and your uncivil comments are not helpful either. I hope admins monitoring this page will pay attention to them. I've been waiting for you to respond to my comment at Talk:Fuzuli International Airport since November 2021 to explain why you removed the link to Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh [22], while Fizuli town was considered occupied by UN SC resolutions, OSCE, PACE, and the rest of the international community. You clearly not a third party here, we have had previous involvement. Grandmaster 10:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Was that contribution supposed to prove how dispassionate that you have become since the ban and that you no longer hold on to positions like a dog with a stick? If so, it's failed. I think that you just scored an own goal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose : You got banned by a consensus of uninvolved administrators for showing biased editing based on ethnicity, pretending to regret biased tendentious editing warring hours after being sanctioned for it is not convincing, courtesy pinging @Rosguill: as original sectioning admin. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another comment from a user who is hardly uninvolved, as manifested by their very recent involvement in an AA2 topic on a BLP noticeboard. Parishan (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose an easing of the ban at this time. I didn't state an opinion in the Arbitration Enforcement but did mediate a dispute at DRN with Grandmaster and another now-banned editor. I can and could see that Grandmaster is an editor who focuses on one battleground border zone of the world, the war zone between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The appropriate response to the topic ban would be to edit in other areas for six months, and then appeal the topic ban. Appealing the topic ban the same day as it was finalized seems to show that they are not interested in any other area of encyclopedic coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here. But I also edit articles that have tangential connection with my main topic of interest. For example, in the last few days I created articles about White Russian officers who were briefly involved in the battle of Baku in 1918. Lazar Bicherakhov and Georgy Dokuchaev are both DYK nominated, but I need to make minor fixes to pass the nomination. Am I allowed to do that now? I have no idea if those are considered AA related. Also, I edit not just Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict related topics, I contributed pretty much to every notable Azerbaijan related article. For example, I have recently largely rewrote the article about Gobustan State Historical and Cultural Reserve, which is a world heritage site, and was in a very bad shape. Over the years, I have made tens of thousands edits to Azerbaijan related articles. So I don't think my contributions should be seen in a narrow context. Grandmaster 01:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here.

  Grandmaster forgive me for being blunt, but you were the organizer of Russian Wikipedia's pro-Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination list, official ArbCom case. It included 26 users, mostly Azerbaijani, all of them got blocked I think for various lenghts. If I'm not wrong, most of the people in that list have English Wikipedia accounts as well, two of them actually commented in this very case. Please don't make such statements again, I almost fell of my chair. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Russian Wikipedia is a separate project. What happens there has no concern to other language projects, including English Wikipedia. And that was 12 (!) years ago. Also, you are not uninvolved editor either. Last time we crossed our paths at the same BLP board, and it was only a couple of days ago. [23] Grandmaster 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean by “separate project”, I think my comment was clear enough and directed to your specific statement. And where exactly I claimed I was “uninvolved”? That doesn’t limit me of the right to comment. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  You know very well that editors don't get sanctioned across different projects for what they do in any one language chapter. Yet you keep bringing up that more than a decade old case in every discussion involving me. For the record, I'm still a regular editor to the Russian wiki, and still contribute there with no sanctions and limitations for over a decade. Anyone can check my contribs there. And I believe reinserting slanderous claims with nonsense sourcing to a BLP article is a lot worse than posting a link to an anti-war article on a talk page discussion. Somehow one gets sanctioned, and the other does not. I have probably chosen a wrong place to appeal, as this place attracts also those who have axes to grind with me for preventing their BLP or other violations. My understanding was that only uninvolved editors will get to decide on this. Grandmaster 09:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  There is no merit in you listing the areas that you have worked on that are unrelated to the topic ban. It's not like you had much choice. What would help your case would be examples of you curbing the excesses of editors with an Azeri bias. For example, if you had demonstrated that you observed an editor doing the same things that got you banned and gently suggested to that editor that he desist from such activity, that would help this appeal. But you have adduced no such evidence. Probably because no such evidence exists. Probably because this leopard has not changed his spots. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Grandmaster, I'm not sure you're helping anyone with your accusatory behavior. I'm also not sure why you bring up a BLP discussion in your appeal, since judging from my actions (or lack thereof), I was satisfied with the explanation given to my comment in that discussion. For the record, I'm still planning to look for better sources as I don't think it would be hard to find, but I didn't have the time yet because of irl responsibilities.

  I also don't think you understood me, I'll repeat for the last time: I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here.- You stated this just above, which I find ironic/laughable/untrue to put it lightly. I reminded you the ru-wiki meat case with whopping 26 Azeri users, most of which have English Wikipedia accounts and couple commented here as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Spend at least six months making neutral improvements to articles that have nothing to do with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Aggressive nationalism is incompatible with Wikipedia editing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment While appealing after a substantially long period of exemplary behaviour and signs of accepting the systematically wrong approach he upheld for AA2 articles would qualify for a TBAN review, I am sorry to see Grandmaster's continued attempts of trivialising his systematic issue to a single "accidental mistake" and I am inclined to view this appeal as forum shopping / admin shopping - raising the same issue on another board, or to other admins, in the hope of finding one with the answer he wants. (a.k.a. "asking the other parent".) Two admins looked into the case - 1) Rosguill with his spotless record of being an impartial arbiter / reviewer of AA2 topics who concluded that Grandmaster's arguments belie a mentality that should have been unlearnt after 16 years of editing Wikipedia and 2) Ealdgyth, who, without previous knowledge of AA2 area, was able to support the TBAN based on the the user's overall contributions, concluding that when a topic area is contentious, the way to deal with it is to step up editing and behave better, not sink down into the mud further. --Armatura (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (the original AE report filer).

  I like Rosguill, but I wouldn't say their record is spotless. They're human like the rest of us. However, I would 100% agree this does seem like forum shopping given the quickness of the appeal and would oppose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Robert McClenon and Cullen328. starship.paint (exalt) 01:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The delayed reaction to close the case normally works in the favor of the reported party, gives time for things to cool down. In this case, the admin felt that there was ample clear evidence to warrant a topic ban. In fact, I had to warn you about being verbose, which you promptly ignored (I did one act of clerking, I didn't comment on the merits in this report). So in fact, instead of being limited to 500 words, the norm at WP:AE, you managed to put get in almost 2000 words, 4x the amount we normally allow. You had plenty of time and space to make your case. It is a judgement call, and given the evidence, it was the most likely outcome. As you haven't provided any evidence of a fatal flaw in the close, of any kind, this appeal shouldn't have even taken place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for commenting. I tried to follow your advice, and keep it short, but since another user was accusing me of various other things, I had to respond to that as well. It is really hard to keep it short when you have to respond to so many things, and not just something you were originally reported for. You can see that that user's comments take almost as much space as mine. Anyway, sorry for using too much space, and making it hard to navigate through. Grandmaster 10:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree you needed more space, which is why I didn't say anything, but the point is, you were given ample opportunity to explain your edits. Sometimes, when you are in the wrong, no amount of explaining is going to make a difference. For what it is worth, you would have been better off spending a few of those words admitting the problem and explaining how you would move forward without the questionable behavior, but that requires some reflection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that you have hit the nail on the head there @Dennis Brown: I have seen no contribution from Grandmaster that shows reflection, let alone remorse for his actions. Without some act of contrition, how can he move to the next stage - resolving to never do it again. Some voluntary penance would also be nice, such as coaching other Azeri-POV editors to be more NPOV. But I can't see that happening because this leopard is incapable of changing his spots IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:51, 20 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 review of Uyghur genocide RfC

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 is a request to review the close at Talk:Uyghur genocide#RfC: First Sentence to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer when I raised my concerns at the NPOV noticeboard. The closer argues there is a consensus for stating that China is committing in genocide in wikivoice in the first lead sentence (option A within the RfC). I believe the closer has failed to properly account for the strength of the policy-based argument made by dissenting editors, who say this fails to follow key tenets of NPOV as summarised at WP:WIKIVOICE, as sources brought to the discussion indicate the label of genocide is contested by high quality sources.

This is obviously a sensitive topic with high exposure, made much more complex by the personal desire of many editors (including myself) to avoid minimising the abuses. I encourage reviewing editors to also read the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard for a brief background. A previous, recent RfC on precisely the same question found a consensus for avoiding the use of the term genocide in wikivoice. Thanks for your time, Jr8825 • Talk 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Jr8825 argues that I failed to properly assess the weight of the arguments. What I will say to that is both sides of this argument (between option A and Option B) were indeed very strong. Both sides ample sourcing and argues their position in full. It's hard to say one side was substantially stronger than the other, they both were strong. My decision was made from of 3 observations. (1) The sourcing provided by Mhawk10 was very strong and abundant (more abundant than the opposition) and it was mostly uncontested, on top at that about 1/3 of the participants in the entire discussion embraced his analysis, another 10 concurred with option A. This made choice A supported by a clear majority. (2) The B supporters did provide RS, however, it was contested by some editors. What matters is that the vast majority of participants were not convinced that this was enough to require a qualification under WP:NPOV. (3) As a closer I'm limited on interjecting my opinion on the policy matters in the discussion. I felt it would haven nearly arose to a super vote if I, alone as the closer, just took the side of the B supporters or ignored the vast majority and ruled no consensus because I just agreed with their application of policy (WP:NPOV) in this case. That wouldn't have been proper or balanced IMO. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying that, you, as the closer, felt there was an NPOV violation and still closed it in favor of maintaining that violation because of a majority vote? Don't we emphasize WP:NOTVOTE to prevent exactly that? BSMRD (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that the consensus was that it didn't violate WP:NPOV. If I thought an editor was POV pushing I would have discarded their !votes. The editors on their own will or consensus said that the RS was abundant enough to say in Wikivoice. They understood the seriousness of this claim. I only would apply policy myself in a discussion if I seriously felt the participants acted with disregard for policy, which was not the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if consensus can be used to completely determine NPOV. It would also have been better had everyone been notified (even if you didn't have to), since you ended up tallying votes, which editors might want to finalize depending on how tallies would be made. I count more sources for B than A, contested or not. Perhaps the collapsed lists were easy to miss because they were added by different editors. Some editors didn't know there had been a previous RfC recently and those findings for B were left out (on the other hand, those for A had been included with this RfC from the start). CurryCity (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• As an "A" !voter, I want to say that I read the various sources put forward in favor and in opposition to using the word "genocide" in wikivoice. I supported A because my conclusion was that there were enough sources using the term to constitute a consensus of sources. It wasn't unanimous, but it doesn't need to be. The fact that some sources don't use the term doesn't mean we can't, or we shouldn't, or that there is an NPOV violation in doing so. My vote wasn't based on ignorance of sourcing nor on ignoring policy: I looked at the same thing everyone else looked at, and I think using the term in wikivoice is what is required in order to faithfully and neutrally summarizing the consensus of the sources put forward. Levivich 17:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources and mainstream news media generally phrase it as follows: "over the past ten years, as documents have been leaked to the press and more Uyghur activists have escaped the country, a bleak picture has emerged, leading some observers—including the U.S.—to classify China’s ongoing human rights abuses as genocide." (Lorraine Boissoneault, Smithsonian "Is China Committing Genocide Against the Uyghurs?" Feb 2, 2022.)

Given this summary, it proves nothing that Mhawk10 found writings by some observers that described it as genocide. Clearly they are reporting their own opinions. For example, James and Marian write, "This paper also argues that [China's actions] constitut[e] at least one count of genocide."

Another of Mhawk10's sources says, "The regime with its inhuman policies is currently carrying out genocide through concentration camps, surveillance capitalism and terror capitalism." (Çaksu) That's clearly not an expression of a consensus view.

Publication of an opinion does not necessarily mean that the opinion has consensus support. We need a source that explicitly makes that statement or else tertiary sources such as textbooks that routinely refer to it as a fact. For example, we can find that for the Holocaust. We don't have sources that say "this paper argues the Holocaust was a genocide" or "many observers classify the Holocaust as a genocide."

TFD (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• checkers should have notified everyone beforehand in case they wanted to add anything, and also informed them of how the votes would be tallied, especially since for votes like A>B>C, only A would be counted, as opposed to A or B or C, where all would be (see diff 1). February has been an eventful month, and not all editors might be active at the RfC despite unresolved discussions. For example, MarkH21 joined almost 1 week after open but otherwise, I would not have known that camp A's sources are almost an exact copy of what were used in an RfC only 7 months ago! And that there were previous findings more in line with choice B, which had been conveniently omitted from this RfC. There's also an issue with source counting, which checkers relied on in part to reach their conclusion. I went over the RfC and counted 43 sources for camp A. 8 of them were from not only the same outlet (Axios) but also by the same exact writer (Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian), and 5 of the apparently scholastic sources had no English versions and could not be effectively contested by most editors. Had I known there would be a closure, I would have added these objections, even though the ones already raised at the RfC should suffice to indicate no consensus. I also counted at least 58 sources for camp B (excluding tweets and blogs etc), only 4 of which were contested. Not sure why checkers felt sources for B were weaker, especially since WhinyTheYounger cited HRW, Amnesty International, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Overall, the closure was hasty and questionable in certain aspects. Considering the sources, there have been no meaningful new findings, only some more of the same media coverage due to the recent Olympics. In light of the previous RfC, the impression I get is that this issue is being pushed to the forefront again but in a not-so-transparent way to newcomers. CurryCity (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I was also surprised by the close and its focus on vote tallies rather than substantive sourcing; many votes on both sides were single-line statements of opinion. I also appreciate the highlighting of my source table, because I believe many of the sources provided earlier by Aquillon were overshadowed by a few questionable inclusions. I'm obviously biased here, but I am still perplexed at the view that the conclusions of HRW, Amnesty International, and the Holocaust Memorial Museum among many others are marginal enough such that their functional exclusion via option A is not a violation of NPOV. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Don't just exclude tweets and blogs, also exclude news, magazines, NGOs, dictionaries, the UN definitions, old sources, etc. Once you filter all those sources down to just legit peer reviewed recent scholarship, the academic consensus becomes clear (or at least it did for me, and I guess for other A voters). Levivich 04:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I endorse the closure. There is a not massive but nevertheless significant margin of editors in favor of option A (~60%) with no particular bias in the opinions that editors expressed over time. There is significant controversy within RS over whether the appellation "genocide" is appropriate, no doubt owing both to politics and to actual academic concerns, and I am not aware that our policies enshrine a standard by which we would favor one side of the debate or another. Thus, the issue comes down to which perspective the community believes is more prevalent in RS, a decision that is ultimately editorial in nature, not policy-based. Editorial decisions can really only be made by feeling the community's pulse, and with a noticeable majority of editors in favor option A, Iamreallygoodatcheckers was well within his discretion to close in favor of it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There is in fact a particular bias of editors expressed over time. Five of the A voters have expressed strong opinions on the political status of Taiwan and two on communist mass killings. That's a third of the voting editors that I have come across on two other discussion pages. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I meant that there wasn't a significant difference in the vote ratios of participants near the beginning vs. near the end of the discussion, which could affect the way consensus should be assessed if it were relevant. Sorry for the confusion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think the closure should be vacated (no offense to Iamreallygoodatcheckers as they've explained how their hands were tied), as to rehold an RFC on a more central location like VPP. There is a central issue with how we should consider source review of topics and language that can be contentious before we put it into wikivoice with a helping of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM factors, in addition that we are supposed to be impartial and dispassionate. The RFC as presented was too complex and not simple. That RFC can be used to establish that there are basically two options (to express the situation as a genocide in wikivoice or not - everything else is DUE-level body/prose language) and that would be a better RFC to cover. --Masem (t) 04:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This really is the central issue thats been danced around for the past few years now through RfCs and move requests and whatnot. The question "should we refer to events as genocide in wikivoice" has gotten different answers at different points in these processes, notably resulting in disconnect between the title and the first sentence for the past several months. We need a broader scope RfC to settle the question somewhat definitively. BSMRD (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

And from some responses in that last RFC and above, it ties into the current issue that we have with how much "trust" we give to a handful of RSes to make statements in wikivoice without attribution far too close to a situation, which is something we absolutely should not be doing. --Masem (t) 04:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Any time you're dealing with an RfC with 5 options for editors to choose from over one of the most contentious topics in modern history it's gonna be hard to make a decision and whatever you do there will be controversy. This is probably the craziest RfC I've seen on Wikipedia to date. The more I've read over everyones comments here and at WP:NPOVN and reread the actual discussion, I too have began to question if I made the best analysis. Maybe some of those A votes really didn't have the strongest points, as I've reread many didn't even mention the sourcing. Just stuff like "A is the best option". Those aren't arguments that have merit here. This also isn't a purely editorial phrasing discussion, it was a deep dive into sourcing and policy. Many of the A supporters didn't engage with the meat of the discussion at all. I should have discarded those !votes entirely and I failed to do so. I treated them equally to a B supporter who dug up a trillion scholarly sources. I could try to defend my closing and I'm sure most admins would rule that it was well within reason, but I understand that this isn't about defending my position it's about what's best for this community. If I let this closing stay it will be enshrined as a nearly bulletproof precedent forever, and that would not be right. The point is closing it for A was wrong. If I could rewind time, I would close it with no consensus and recommend a discussion with A and B pitted against each other.I endorse overturning my closure. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Iamreallygoodatcheckers, then please go self revert your close, close this thread as self-reverted, and leave it to someone else to close the RfC (do not re-close it). Levivich 11:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. While the close was made in good faith based on numbers, that isn't how we close. If it had been unanimous for A, the same problem would exist, that you have to discard votes that are against policy, NPOV in particular. You have to follow the sources, and for as long as the sources aren't using "genocide" as a consensus, we don't in Wiki voice, no matter how many people want to. That's hard to do in cases like this, because as closer, you have to look around a bit and understand what the sources are saying, and still close without it being a supervote. This is why RFCs like this should only be closed by very experienced editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:53, 22 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.

vandalism only IP

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.

---

https://guc.toolforge.org/?user=216.56.20.138 --Palosirkka (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to be done. No edits since 2019 and already the subject of a three-year range block. Nthep (talk) 11:12, 22 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.

Miscategorized users

Hello. If anyone's bored, the miscategorized users (configuration) database report could use some love. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Kazemi Dam

Hello. Please protect this article (Kazemi Dam). User khabat4545 deletes source content and adds incorrect information. History edit. Masoud bukani (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure whose right or wrong but seems the issue spills over to Lagzi_Lake which appears to be same dam/lake/locale and also been renamed.Slywriter (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I also haven't looked into who is right or wrong, but I note that Talk:Kazemi Dam and Talk:Lagzi Lake are empty apart from banners. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

See google maps. You can view other wiki articles to validate the information, Like Persian Wiki.

User Khabat4545. He has committed forgery. Edited the text to his liking. Just read the sources and compare the text. Masoud bukani (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Lagzi Lake I reviewed the sources of this article. This article is fake! This content is exactly related to the article of Shahid Kazemi Dam!

• https://iraniantazrighpump.com/shahid-kazemi-dam

Employer

Western Azerbaijan Province Regional Water Organization

Consultant

Mahab Ghods Consulting Engineering Company

Main contractor

Keshvar-Abo-Khak Engineering Services Co. (western Azerbaijan Agency)

Specialist drilling and grouting contractor

Iranian Tazrigh Pump Co.

location

Bookan (Bukan), Western Azerbaijan

Scope of work

14000m Spillway drilling and grouting, curtain grouting on top of spillway and left abutment of dam.

Masoud bukani (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not undo edit. Waiting for managers to review resources and text.Masoud bukani (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Khabat4545: can you explain your recent changes? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I am afraid that he will not be responding, seeing as he has been blocked. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the location, coordinates, and other technical information provided by both infoboxes is virtually the same, plus that both pages were moved from the draft space by Khabat, and that the sources formerly included in Lagzi Lake were not talking about the lake, but about the dam, I have redirected both Lagzi Lake and Saqqez Shahid Kazemi Dam to Kazemi Dam. As Kazemi Dam is admin protected, and the performer is a blocked editor, an admin should consider to restore its title back to Shahid Kazemi Dam. Otherwise this seems to be a candidate for an uncontroversial RM. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I think there is no need for explanation or discussion. It is enough to check the sources and maps of Google and its Persian article to understand. See article history, user added custom text but sources said something else. An example:

En article:

The crown of this dam is located 25 km Northeast of Saqqez on the border of Kurdistan province and West Azarbaijan Province.

The Persian article reads as follows:

The crown of this dam is located 25 km Northeast of Bukan on the border of Kurdistan province and West Azarbaijan Province.

This user has replaced the name Saqqez with Bukan! While examining the sources and maps, we realize that this dam is in the province of West Azerbaijan, not the province of Kurdistan!

• https://financialtribune.com/articles/environment/101333/west-azarbaijan-dams-help-revive-troubled-lake-urmia
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34165757/
• https://jifro.ir/browse.php?a_id=72&sid=1&slc_lang=en

Do a Google search for Saqqez Lagzi Dam, there is nothing about this name! I think this is a fake name! But do a Google search for Kazemi Dam or Kazemi Bukan Dam.

Masoud bukani (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Fake Account (Khabat4545)

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 khabat4545 is already closed due to multiple accounts. Now, with another account, he is sabotaging. 1 Masoud bukani (talk) 08:29, 23 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.

British Democratic Party (2013)

Evening all. Could someone look at the article, above? An editor with the initials BDP is making edits that look rather suspicious, certainly potential COI. Any help would be great  doktorb _words^deeds 00:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: You are supposed to notify any editor mentioned here. Why have you not done so? Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

An innocent oversight User:Mjroots @Mjroots . I'm not usually around this board and thought I had followed the rules. Not malicious, just clumsy. doktorb _words^deeds 18:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Irregular IP block

12.251.247.58 (talk · contribs · block log)

Can someone review this? IP addresses normally don’t get an indefinite block but are given a 6-month to 1-year block if there’s a history of vandalism. Thanks. 68.194.161.176 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How do we know that you are not the target of the block, and if you aren't, what is your interest here? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

And this is why we ask the blocking admin first. You're right this appears to have been a rare mistake. However the IP has been abused regularly since 2018. I'll consider an appropriate block length later today (I suspect it will remain blocked for a number of years). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, both the IP which started this section, and the IP being asked about, geolocate to Brooklyn, New York City. 2.55.175.178 (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

And since the block is a {{checkuserblock}}, most admins don't even have access to the evidence. 2.55.175.178 (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

And this is why... oh I already said that. That the 68. range has been regularly abused by the same vandal is a thing that hasn't escaped me. It doesn't really detract from their substantive point, that the block should probably be made to extend for years into the future instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've re-blocked the IP. The least arbitrary figure I could come up with 1,000 days. Of course the IP is welcome to come see me about any potential implications of this re-block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Systematic removal of sourcing to a particular author at multiple articles

ConstantPlancks has been removing citations to the work of a particular author, Fabio Parasecoli, at multiple articles for "not being notable" (due to Parasecoli not being the subject of an article?) and accusing other editors of "astroturfing" and promotional edits for using those sources. I think it's possible the editor has confused reliable source vs. article subject notability, but they're pushing back on their talk page and at article talks.

1. Removal and accusations of astroturfing at Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four
2. Removal and accusations of astroturfing at Gastronationalism
3. Here, here, here.

There’s also a concern about repeated edit warring, which has been discussed at their talk, and they’ve pushed back on that, too.

1. Special:Diff/1072896014, again at Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four; followup here and here
2. Special:Permalink/1073213234#Elk is an earlier concern about edit-warring
3. Pushback on whether this is a content vs. behavior issue

This is a newish and I’m sure well-intentioned editor, but this seemed like it might need input from others. I thought about taking it to RSN, but that didn’t seem exactly right when all the removals were about the same author and when there seemed to be unwillingness to reconsider whether a source needs to be "notable", and especially with the accusations of astroturfing and the edit warring and refusal to consider whether this was appropriate for user talk discussion, it seemed to be a behavior issue rather than a content dispute. valereee (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's not so much the disagreement as to the content of any particular article that is concerning, but more the battleground approach they seem to have to bring each time. This is exacerbated by the repeated casting of aspersions and BLP violations, which have not only been repeated in multiple edit summaries and in multiple posts, but doubled down upon. SN54129 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(Actually, I'm wondering od WP:CIR applies; the response below is tone-deaf to the behavioral issues identified (let alone their continued aspersions). SN54129 16:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC))

The removals are discussed on the talk pages of the article. They are all policy and guideline removals. They are justified on the talk page. There is no edit warring and the removals of a fringe economic opinion in an article about Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four by a Food and Nutrition professor are justified. The sourcing tied to that professor are either trivial or unreliable. Most of the removals are just removing the source as it is duplicative and appear to exist solely for the benefit of improving the notoriety of the professor. As I said on the talk page of one of MANY articles he is inexplicably mentioned, someone familiar with astroturfing campaigns should review these mentions. There are no BLP violations (??). I have not accused anyone of engaging in astrurfing only that there appears that the encyclopedia is astroturfed. There simply was no reason given for the poor sourcing and trivial mentions. As an example, one of the sources is from a political advocacy organization's magazine used as the second source for a claim. It appears that getting a mention as a source was the goal rather than adding content. Removing the political advocacy source did not change the content of the article or sourcing for facts in the article. ConstantPlancks (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ConstantPlancks, I object to the characterization of my edits as appear to exist solely for the benefit of improving the notoriety of the professor and It appears that getting a mention as a source was the goal rather than adding content. Please strike both accusations. valereee (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not characterizing you or your edits in any way. Indeed, I don't even know what edits are yours. I characterized the sources in the article as unnecessary. It is also unreliable. The source was a single political newsletter citation used as a duplicate source 3 times.

This is the removal in question. Borgen Magazine is not a reliable source. It was used as the source to justify quoting the professor trivially and then sprinkled as a source in 2 other places that already had reliable sources. This is a CE removal of an unnecessary and unreliable. No content was removed. ConstantPlancks (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

FTR I told you yesterday the addition of that source was mine. It was a very short post, and you responded, so you must have seen that. Strike the accusations. valereee (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also the new one: It was used as the source to justify quoting the professor trivially. These are serious accusations. valereee (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for any poor wording that might be miscontrued as being personal. It is not intended to be. Rather it describes the state of the article. The quote of the professor was a triviallity. we can have that content discussion but it's my opinion about content, not an attack on you. ConstantPlancks (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Fabio Parasecoli is a respected academic who has written many books that have been reviewed extensively and widely cited by other academics. Just take a look at his listing at Google Scholar. The notion that he should not be cited on Wikipedia is, frankly, bizarre. This repeated use of the pejorative terms "astroturfing" and "spam" is a BLP violation against the professor and a personal attack against two very experienced editors. It amounts to an accusation that this professor and these two editors are colluding to get mentions of his books into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. One of ConstantPlancks edit summaries reads "rm spam to sell cookbook of non-notable shef" which is glaringly inaccurate. The book is not a cookbook and Parasecoli is not a chef. ConstantPlancks has a bee in their bonnet, and they need to stop this campaign of casting aspersions on this professor and the editors who cite his work. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Agree that was a flip edit summary. Consider though that Parasecoli was being cited for a capitalism quote and cited 5 times in an article about Nineteen Eighty-Four. That was very weird. Also weird is the same editor objects to a CE removal in a different article [24]. That article was created by a SPA as obvious copy/paste job. It left a citation fragment without indication. I made a CE to remove the unreferenced fragment. Still reverted by editor that has history with that article as well (making an edit 5 minutes after creation). ConstantPlancks (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A veiled aspersion^^^ is still an aspersion. Clearly, the reason I had the article on my watchlist is because I had patrolled it almost five years ago. And, far from my "history with that article" being some kind of conspiracy, my exact edit was to slap a bunch of tags on a crummy article with the reason give: It does not currently adhere to almost any of WP:MOS. Yet again you are demonstrating an inability to not personalize your editing. Much as you keep referring to 1984, etc., as you have been told, this is not the place to discuss content: this forum is for editor's behavior, and no side-alleying into gastronomics can affect that or distract from it. SN54129 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You reverted a clean-up to restore a fragment the just says "Parasecoli: 2014" with no indication that there is a source. There is no source in that article with Parasecoli listed as an author. [25] Second article you did that and left warnings on my talk page that I would be blocked. ConstantPlancks (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My edits come down to three things:

1. The opinion expressed by Parasecoli that Oceania actually has excess food due to extreme capitalism is a fringe view.

2 That Borgen Magazine" is an unreliable source for WP as it is published by a political advocacy org.

3 Parasecoli is a notable Food and Nutrition professor that should be cited properly according to WP:RS.

Anything beyond that reasoning is not intended and I don't mean to imply anything nefarious. ConstantPlancks (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ConstantPlancks:, as an uninvolved outside observer, perhaps you will find my input helpful. I think you are missing something fundamental here. When multiple long-time editors across multiple articles and talk pages are telling you that something is amiss with your editing pattern, the thing to do is not try to justify those edits or keep making them. The thing to do is stop that pattern and gain acceptance of your actions. This is a collaborative project and both communication with your fellow editors and building agreement with those editors are required. At this point, the justifiability or lack thereof of any particular removal of Parasecoli is not the issue. The issue is whether you intend to continue removing these and why. I hope that helps explain some things. 20:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)

On the talk pages where I removed things, the consensus appears to be the removals were justified. The anger appears to be with the edit summaries which I apologize for. ConstantPlancks (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

CP, when you simply remove a citation (even like simply 'Parasecoli 2014' which was in the Migrants article with no corresponding source) you remove any clue for other editors to follow. I've found Parasecoli, Fabio (2014). "Food, Identity, and Cultural Reproduction in Immigrant Communities". Social Research. 81 (2): 415–439. doi:10.2307/26549625. ISSN 0037-783X. which looks to be quite likely the source the article creator -- which looks like students in a class -- originally cited to and forgot to include in the sources. College students creating articles (badly) is common here. That doesn't mean we make the situation worse by deleting those clues. It means we clean up.

And your objection to this fails to address your apparent fixation on Parasecoli. I think you should stop editing around Parasecoli. valereee (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no way of deleting clues. It's all in the history. That was a copy edit routinely used to removes floating, irrelevant text. It's still in the history. Every other floating MOS failing references were removed by other editors (~50 ??). I don't have a fixation on Parsecoli. As I said, I was reading the 1984 article when a fringe view was cited as fact. That single google book source was cited 5 times in 1984 article and the author mentioned by name twice, including a red link. That was odd. The next article he was cited 3 times, named once and the source was from a political advocacy journal. It seems his food and culture citations are fine and peer reviewed. His political and economic views appear to be fringe and deserve scrutiny. Search wikipedia for his name turns up many articles on food and culture, none of which I edited. Nor does Parsecoli change the fact that Borgen Magazine is not a reliable source. If he's that notable for his opinion on such a broad range of topics, create a biographical article on him. I had never heard of him before reading his economic views in the 1984 article. Forgive me if the article's reliance on his views seemed odd. ConstantPlancks (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no realistic way that any editor can be expected to know there is a incomplete ref in the article history that some editor deleted. If an editor finds something is uncited, they're going to assume it was added uncited. They're not going to think there was an incomplete ref (or any ref) but an editor deleted it since probably 99.9% of the time that won't be the case. Very rarely if something is very obscure and doesn't seem to be found in other sources an editor may find out who added something and see if they have a source and in doing so they'll probably notice it was added with an incomplete ref. But most of the time the detail is going to be deleted, tagged or left unsourced. By comparison, when an editor comes across an incomplete ref they can immediately see there was an attempt to source the text. They may look in the history to see if something is lost, or they may simply look for the source. Or yes they may delete the detail, tag it or left it with the incomplete source. If the editor does try to complete ref, the may find that the ref isn't suitable for Wikipedia and will need to deal with that. Or they may find it's perfectly fine and they'll complete the details and collobration will have worked. Note that beyond helping to find reference, unusual and incomplete references can sometimes indicate that the text was copied from an external source so while plenty of editors aren't going to do this, some editors may also check the history to work out if this happened depending on the precise presentation. Nil Einne (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There was no uncited material. I didn't remove any article content because an additional reference wasn't needed . It added nothing to the article. The sentence fragment it appeared in is supported by every source on the topic. The article is about migrant food consumption and the sentence fragment stated migrants used local ingredients in migrant dishes. Every source on the topic states this and indeed the next source supported that fragment. So either it was misplaced in the editing process or it was trivial. The CE to remove it is more akin to a spelling or formatting issue. ConstantPlancks (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It really isn't akin to a spelling or formatting issue, and I'm growing increasingly concerned that you aren't willing to listen to and learn from people who are more experienced. @ConstantPlancks, do you intend to continue making these kinds of removals? valereee (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

ConstantPlancks, I am concerned by your repeated assertion that Borgen Magazine is not a reliable source. I have checked the archives of all the noticeboards and I see no discussion of the reliability of this magazine anywhere, except in this conversation. It is used as a source in many articles and I see no evidence that its use has been controversial. Can you point me to any such discussion? Yes, it is the magazine of an advocacy group. They advocate for an end to extreme poverty. That is hardly a fringe view. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. So, unless you can produce evidence of consensus that this particular magazine is unreliable, you do not have any basis for that assertion. Another concern I have is that you repeatedly suggest that Fabio Parasecoli is not a reliable source because he is not notable and that is because he lacks a Wikipedia article, and that other editors should write a biography of him if they want to cite him. These repeated comments seem to indicate that you are conflating reliability with notability. These are very different concepts on Wikipedia that should not be confused. There are sources that are reliable but not notable. Many small town newspapers fall into this category, but they are reliable for news of their locales. There are also sources that are indisputably notable but not reliable. My favorite examples are Der Stürmer and the Weekly World News. Those notable publications are glaringly unreliable. Never consider the absence or presence of a Wikipedia article about a source to be evidence for or against the reliability of that source, although if an article exists, it may contain useful evidence one way or another. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Borgen Magazine is a product of The Borgen Project. It doesn't have to be neutral but it has to be reliable. Who are the editors that make it reliable? What is their publication process? Their self-stated goal is admirable but self-publishing a goal is not the measure of reliability. The stated objective of the organization is advocacy nearly every wrong ever righted in history was achieved through advocacy. That's the opposite of Wikipedias NPOV goal so using advocacy sources are unstable ground hat should be tread carefully (or not at all if better sources are available). Its reliability as a source is limited largely to attributed opinion. It's not reliable for unattributed fact just as The Heartland Institute isn't useful for unattributed fact. Context matters. Also It is used as a source in many articles and Never consider the absence or presence of a Wikipedia article about a source to be evidence for or against the reliability of that source to be interesting juxtapositions in the same paragraph. I don't have anything against Borgen Magazine except for using them outside attributed opinion. e.g. They shouldn't be used for a hearsay quote from a person unaffiliated with the group because we don't know their angle other than knowing they have an angle. From WP:RS Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. Demonstrate their qualification. ConstantPlancks (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As an example, see this reference removal [26]. I apologize for the edit summary but the removal is justified. Borgen is the 3rd source for an opinion. It's a 3rd hand account. The other 2 sources are peer reviewed. Why should we keep it as a citation? Article content is unaffected and they are not the author of the opinion they are being attributed with. We have 2 citations directly to the author Michaela DeSoucey who did not publish this opinion in Borgen. But Borgen is being cited. Why? ConstantPlancks (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The academic credentials of Fabio Parasecoli should be well known to you by now or to anyone who can use Google Scholar even though you originally falsely described him as a cookbook author and chef. As for the magazine, your bare assertion without evidence that it is unreliable is not persuasive. Either seek consensus for your assessment at WP:RSN or drop the matter. Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

ConstantPlancks, you keep making arguments that you were correct on content and sourcing, which a. is IMO incorrect and b. doesn’t matter in this venue. I will be happy to argue those with you at the correct venues, but please stop arguing here that your edits were correct and therefore your behavior is not an issue. That is not how Wikipedia works.

The bigger problem is that you want to keep arguing why you're right and everyone else is wrong. You have 230 edits. Cullen has 81000. Nil Einne has 68000. Eggishorn has 17000. All of these editors have much, much more experience than you do. When multiple highly-experienced editors try to tell you something, stop arguing and start listening because there's probably something you don't understand.

We're here because you refused to keep talking to me (52K edits, btw) and SN54129 (90K) at your user talk and told me to take it to a noticeboard. Because you are so inexperienced, people are trying to be helpful and kind here, but they do expect you to be willing to learn, and you seem to be refusing to do so. valereee (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Random side thought - I just did a quick search for sources, in the same way I would do a WP:BEFORE search if an article was at AfD. I have no doubt that Fabio Parasecoli is notable, under WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, and that if someone wrote an article about him, it would be retained. I might do so myself actually, now I've done the search, unless someone beats me to it. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  ConstantPlancks, and this is exactly why we create redlinks: not to signal that a subject isn't notable but to indicate we think they might be and hope that someone will come along who is willing to do that work. valereee (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I made a start - see Fabio Parasecoli. valereee, Cullen328 - feel free to contribute - you're probably better at this kind of subject than I am! Girth Summit _(blether) 13:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, what kind of edit is this where you include Rv trolling in the edit summary? And an accusation of WP:CIR here? I would certainly be quicker to question the competence of the editor adding and restoring such content rather than the one removing it. Probably three out of ConstantPlancks's five edits presented here are improvements to the articles, for which he is taking a lot of flack. If it's suspected he is not really a new editor then out with the accusation, otherwise this thread is examining the behavior of the wrong editor. fiveby(zero) 13:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

*sigh* "RV trolling" is a pretty natural response to being called an astroturfer and spammer, while CIR was merely a reflection on the facts as they stood (one of two choices; would you prefer malice over incompetence?). And no-one except you has suggested they are 'not a new editor; if this thread is examining the behavior of the wrong editor, then may I suggest you start a thread examining the behavior of another? SN54129 13:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's a new editor they should be thanked for their contributions rather than this pile-on criticism by editors making worse content decisions. If not spamming, adding Fabio Parasecoli's name inline and citing Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture is an odd choice an article on Nineteen Eighty-Four. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby, this editor told me to take it to a noticeboard. I brought it to AN instead of ANI because it's a bit of a kinder, gentler place. This isn't piling on, this is actually a several very experienced editors taking a lot of time to write long, thoughtful explanations to a newer editor, and being quite patient with that newer editor's reluctance to listen and learn. I disagree with you the removal of sources/sourced content represents an improvement, but this is not the place to discuss that. Please discuss those at article talk or RSN. valereee (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I asked you to take it to a noticeboard because of your comment that my talk page was needed "first." I was concerned that my talk page was becoming a trap and diff farm for this noticeboard. In fact, you cited 3 comments over a year old on my talk as evidence of prior warnings. You even pointed to Elk in this ANI above Special:Permalink/1073213234#Elk as an earlier concern about edit-warring. My total contributions to Elk is a single edit so it seems disingenuous to accuse me of being warned for a concern about edit warring. [27]. @Fiveby accurately describes how I felt when I came across: Fabio Parasecoli's name inline and citing Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture is an odd choice an article on Nineteen Eighty-Four. I understand my edit summary created a reaction I didn't intend and is noted. ConstantPlancks (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@ConstantPlancks, the edit summaries are just one issue, but I'm glad you understand why they were not okay. Thank you for understanding that.

The more important issue to me is the objection to perfectly reasonable sources, as removing a reasonable source can be damaging to the project. Food is important in 1984, and Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture discusses it. It's a perfectly reasonable source.

You also can't assume that simply because there are three sources following a sentence that everything in that sentence was in all three sources. When you remove a source because you think it's not a good source, you may be removing the only source for something. If you believe a source is not good enough, you can tag it as. Please do not remove any more sources, even if you believe they are not good enough or not needed or incomplete. Instead tag them or bring them up on the article talk or at WP:RSN.

If you want to take this back to your talk, I'm happy to do that. If you're willing to learn, I would be happy to work with you at your talk to understand these things. valereee (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Since we've established that Fabio Parasecoli is a reliable source on matters pertaining to the intersection of food, politics and popular culture as touched on in 1984, I've restored the material regarding his assessment of food in the novel to the /Analysis section, where it fits nicely along with the numerous other scholarly opinions. I note this is less than half the amount of the original text. SN54129 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated on the article talk page Talk:Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four by me, only the single bit about chocolate (out of 5) could reasonably be included [28]. It's marginable though as there is no analysis or insight provided. It uses Parasecoli as a reference to quote "1984" directly. It probably should just be attributed to Orwell since it's his words doing the heavy lifting. Had you read the article talk page, you would have realized this days ago that only one of the five Parasecoli references were okay. Marginal, but okay. Here was my comment on the one edit about food in Don't need Fabio quoting the book just because one of the examples (food) of pre-totalitarian was better. Trivial example. This was the closest to a relevant sourcing and it simply isn't needed. Also, you added another bit unrelated to food that was removed by another editor. Glad there are more eyes on it. ConstantPlancks (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have read the talk page, but I appreciate the (continued!) aspersion that I either choose not to or am incapable of doing so. It is your general battleground approach and repeated insinuations of bad faith that deter me from working with you; it has been an unpleasant experience, unlike with others, and I do not see your continued participation here as either helpful to the project or its readers. My congratulations on adding to the toxicity of Wikipedia. SN54129 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree that unfortunately this editor does not seem to want to learn or stop their battleground behavior. I think at minimum they need to stop editing around Parasecoli, and since they are telling us they'd never heard of Parasecoli before this, I'm wondering if they need not to remove sources or content unilaterally anywhere for now. valereee (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've not removed anything since before you opened this. You accuse me of battleground behavior and used my single edit to Elk as "edit warring" from over a year ago as an example and just repeat it as if it were fact without a diff. You agreed with the only edit proposal I made regarding Parasecoli sourced sentence [29]. I provide what was in the WP article vs what is in the source here[30]. Other editors can read what I wrote for themselves to see if there is anything improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't agree. I agreed to compromise. That is what we do here. And I think you made this removal after this AN was opened? I know you think this broken source was not worth keeping. I have no attachment to the edit-warring concerns, fine with removing that from this and discussing the more concerning issues here: unwillingness to learn, battleground approach. Seriously, I've offered to take this to your user talk to help you understand. You really aren't going to respond to that? valereee (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You can take it to my talk. When you were on my talk, though, you wanted to talk about my content edits. You struck the edit warring complaint but still say I have a battleground behavior again w/o citation. I am not battling anyone. It's not like I am the only one making the argument. The 1984 article has largely adopted my edits. You found the citation for the other article and there is no battle over that. I apologized for the poor edit summaries but even after apologizing it appears there is still another pint of blood required and I'm not sure what that is. I feel like you are looking for some kind of editor sanction and I'm not sure why. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking to user talk. valereee (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Help me

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

---

Hello respected sirs,

Please help me how to write on wikipedia. 7M4TN7 (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@7M4TN7 See WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The sockpuppetteer is seeing how many administrators are paying attention to the administrator's noticeboard.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeezGod
• Rabnebanadijodi (talk · contribs): "NT4M" "NT4M"
• Wichan The Lost Guy (talk · contribs): "bomb blast"
• 7M4TN7 (talk · contribs): "bomb blast"
• ZNKA (talk · contribs)
• Rajen Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, it's a hobby. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Didn't get you, respected sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7M4TN7 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 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.

Setup {{Category chart}}

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

---

Can an admin setup {{Bare URLs chart}}, following the instructions here? (I've done steps 1 and 2.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

step 3 is done. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: please open an edit request at User talk:MusikBot/CategoryCounter/config; I'm not exactly sure what needs to go in there. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 24 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.

Want to create a translation page about An Jung Geun in Bengali, of the existing article in English

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 administrator,

I wish to create a translated wiki page about An Jung Geun in Bengali. I have translated the existing English wiki page into Bengali and wish to upload the same. Please help. This is an assignment so I need to post it by today.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditibanerjee22 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but please note that no one on English Wikipedia can determine what goes on Bengali Wikipedia (bn.wikipedia.org). You should put your translation there according to the rules of Bengali Wikipedia. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:07, 24 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.

RfPP 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.

---

There's a long backlog at WP:RfPP at the moment. Can someone help clear it please? Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 25 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.

Emergency captcha enable

Given the ongoing severe botnet disruption. Emergency captcha mode has been enabled. Seddon ^talk 02:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This has now been disabled 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Aaaand its back -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess this is about mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit#EmergencyCaptcha_mode, which requires unregistered and non-autoconfirmed users to solve a captcha for every edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Indeed it was—should note its off again now -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! :D ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Seddon Do you maintain Wikipedia? Just wondering how you can change the base settings here. Who enables captcha mode? You or someone else? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

In this instances the WMF's Site Reliability Team oversaw the deployment of the config changes, but the decision was made by a cohort of admins who requested their assistance in dealing with the situation. Seddon ^talk 23:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Seddon And who are in this reliability team? Are you in it? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:, very roughly this is the SRE team. I know that page is out of date, because it has Seddon in the advancement team (fundraising, amongst other bits), which is no longer correct. Seddon isn't SRE, I believe, but as a staff member and long-term volunteer, likely stepped in to help as a go between Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: In this instance I was acting in my capacity as an admin here @ enwiki, along with a number of other admins who were responding to this situation from Thursday-Saturday. As @Nosebagbear references, as well as an admin here at enwiki, I am also a software engineer with the WMF although not a member of the SRE team. I've got experience with situations like this, was also a former community liaison and so was facilitating and assisting both fellow editors and staff members through the situation. Seddon ^talk 15:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear@Seddon Thanks to both of you for your reply. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hello, all,

This talk page hasn't even existed for 48 hours and it already has a talk page archive and 76 discussions going on. It sometimes borders on FORUM. Does it need temporary protection? There are already accusations I've seen from Russian IPs that Wikipedia is presenting a biased point of view. I'm usually for unprotected talk pages but this will only get more active in days to come. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I see this subject has already come up (above) but this inquiry is about this specific talk page, not Ukraine articles in general. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this talk page would benefit from a short-term (like one or three days) semi-protection. Do we also have a big banner which would remind the users about the NOTFORUM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I added {{Not a forum}}, for all the good that I expect it to do. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need protection yet. Any disruption is quickly reverted (there are over 370 watchers and an edit seems to happen every two minutes), and there are several new users and IPs raising valid comments. We've got 12 hour archival, though perhaps eight hours would be more suitable. Anarchyte (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is what I wanted to hear, Anarchyte, I started this short discussion here, rather than protecting the page myself, to get more eyes on it and so that more people would be aware that it is probably the most politicized page right now. I also don't want to limit IP editors but what I was seeing when I initiated this discussion was people posting "news items" like YouTube video clips which should be discouraged. I know people get excited and want to share breaking news but that's not what our talk pages are for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia: a ground for political attack and propaganda?

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

---

Hi gentlemen editors,

I request that all senior editors have a comprehensive look at the page Qatar and State Sponsored Terrorism and analyse all sentences and sources used in the page from the very first minute the page was created. I would not like to sound sentimental or judgmental, more so that I am not a Wikipedia editor and unfamiliar with its editorial principles, but I strongly belief that Qatar and State Sponsored Terrorism page is absolutely a political propaganda and an attack against the subject.

I request that the page be deleted.

Please do not hasten to dismiss this issue. Read and analyse before taking a position.

Here are the reasons I am proposing the deletion of the page.

The page was created in 2015 with 24 sources but all were nonexistent sources. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&oldid=666087413#cite_note-12

The page has been expanded since its creation in 2015, but more than 50 per cent of the sources in the page in its current form today are not related to the statements in the page. I urge all to spare some moment and review the sources in relation to the statements and allegations contained in the page.

I wondered why Wikipedia ignored its own principles and allowed this to remain since 2015.

One would think that the page should have been deleted immediately it was created for peddling unfounded propaganda and attacking a political subject.

It is important to note here that the page was created in bad faith: to attack its subject because all sources used from the day it was created were all unverifiable. And one of your principles states that any statement or page whose sources cannot be verified should be deleted immediately.

The pertinent question is why was this page not deleted? But it is also never late to take it down completely.

If this page is allowed to remain, it therefore means that Wikipedia is allowing and supporting political attack and propaganda campaign in violation of its own core principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1600-1700s (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• If you'd like to request deletion of Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism, the place to do that would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sigh. A brand new editor, who's first edit is coming to AN to complain about a well sourced article. Who's sock is this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hi gentleman editors there's your first mistake. This isn't some old boys club. We let women and gender non-binary people edit too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu: Let? I think Bishzilla would eat me if I suggested we were "letting" her edit ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • • Nosebagbear, . Obviously I didn't mean that quite literally. Team feminism ftw. (Glad you didn't ping her, I don't want to be eaten tyvm) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 25 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.

Advice about an IP user

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

I was wondering if I could possibly get a bit of advice about the correct path to follow regarding a user (user:131.203.251.134) who is engaged in what looks to be good faith but probably mildly harmful editing of wikipedia. I doubt it is serious enough to take to ANI, but I think it probably needs dealing with.

The user has a strong aversion to certain grammatical forms, the passive voice (where they can recognise it), structures which use the copula "to be" and even the verb "to be" itself. They tend to substitute them with active sentences even when doing so makes no sense. They also have a tendency to "by whom" tag examples of the passive in the text, even when no reasonable interpretation of WP:WEASEL could suggest it was warranted. These structures are fine to use in wikipedia, and in standard English in general, and their removal often weakens the article's prose.

While it is not a big deal in the great scheme of things, the user is editing in a way that on balance is detrimental to the project. I have left a couple of messages on their talkpage but they have not yet engaged with my comments. What can be done to steer them towards more productive editing?

--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You might point them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine related page should 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.

---

Please support us — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't delete this post. We are humble. Do needful. Do discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Page protection is requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You can add some extra dots and save us (I don't know how to use this site and we still have humor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Our rules don't allow us to protect pages pre-emptively. There needs to be problems at a page first, and then you report it for protection, at WP:RFPP. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Protecting pages would also prevent people from writing about what is happening and who is doing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 24 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.

User with a name closely similar to mine

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.

---

Sorry to bother you. There's a user who has a very similar user name as mine, except it is BattleshipGun as I am BattleshipMan. I find that very strange and I'm a bit concerned. The user link of that user below.

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

Would you mind check it out for me and notify that user for me since I know it's procedure to notify the user reporting the noticeboard? BattleshipMan (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SIMILARNAME applies, although I don't think it's similar enough to be an issue. They are not impersonating you. GiantSnowman 06:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman: Well, people might confuse me with that user for one, since I am one of a long time editors on here. That's what I'm concerned about. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• It all depends from what happens in the next edits. There have been a lot of edits that do nothing effective at all, such as whitespace in templates (Special:Diff/1073097172/1074041617) or are like Special:Diff/1074044319. This could be genuine. It could be a push to get autoconfirmed status. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you consider asking them to change username (WP:CHUS) because you found the usernames too similar (not an unreasonable view [31])? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The user should change the username because I won't. That's for sure. Someone should tell the user that. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You are required to notify the other user when you open a section here that concerns them. I have done that for you. valereee (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

My first reaction was that the user name is not quite close enough to be a concern, but I suppose if you are both going to edit the same articles it could be. User:BattleshipMan, why come straight to an admins' noticeboard rather than the user's talk page? You have not communicated at all. The "someone" who should be talking to the other editor is you. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan, have you ever looked at Special:ListUsers/Battleship? There are dozens of editors whose usernames start the same as yours. Adding one more to the list is really not likely to cause any problems that you're not already having. You should instead be happy that you have such an unusual username. There are thousands of Giants, Phils, Uncles, Vals, and Whats here. That's what happens when a website has 43,133,136 registered users. Some of the names will naturally be very similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 26 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.

Sockpuppet : E.-T.

Hi dear admins. You know who's him? He made any socks. Any users like this name :

1. User:Télévisioniste-SECAM
2. User:Écraniste-SECAM
3. User:Vive les téléss entrelacés!

Etc... Block it. Météor de Niort (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• We cannot block users here purely because they have been blocked on another wiki. Given that only one of the accounts has actually made an edit (and that was over 2 months ago to revert a message from a French user telling them they were blocked on fr.wiki) there is nothing to do at this time. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass removal of category Glider aircraft

User "Nimbus227" has just started a mass removal of articles about glider aircraft types from Category:Glider aircraft. No explanation has been given. This should be stopped. Thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Glider aircraft is a parent category of Category:Sailplanes, an example is the Schempp-Hirth Discus which is in Category:1980s German sailplanes which is a sub-category of Category:1980s sailplanes whose parent category is Category:Sailplanes. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is the guideline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It is actually a parallel category, which has been in place uncontestedly since 2004. If someone wants to look for an overview of all glider aircraft types, how should he know whether to look in "Lithuanian sailplanes" or "1980s German sailplanes"? There is not even any list showing (almost) all glider types; you always have to know at least the nationality of the manufacturer. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't find what a 'parallel' category is at Wikipedia:Categorization. So you are saying that Category:Dogs should be in every dog-related article because you want to see them all in one place? Uncontested usually means unnoticed, there are many incorrect things that have been in place for a very long time on Wikipedia, that does not make them immune from correction. I note no attempt to discuss this elsewhere contra to the instructions at the top of the page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an editing dispute that should be discussed at a talk page; it does not require admin intervention to resolve. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I would totally agree that this not an ANI problem though dragging an experienced editor here with no warning or discussion elsewhere is and a warning should be given for it. The complainant's talk page history shows historic problems with categorisation and, oddly, on Commons the user is trying to implement over diffusion (the opposite of what is being complained about here). Baffled.

It seems the complainant's primary wiki is German, I guess things are done differently there. The correct venue to discuss this is WT:AIR though I really believe there is nothing to discuss.

Examples of similar categories are Category:Aircraft which has one page (plus one user sandbox (approximately 10,000 type articles)}, Category:Helicopters (60 pages with about 10 type articles (approximately 1,150 type articles)) and Category:Aircraft engines (53 pages, less than five types (there are approximately 2,000 type articles). By contrast :Category:Glider aircraft has 453 type article pages with nine sub-categories available for diffusion.

There is no dispute, just one editor not understanding how the wiki:en categorisation system works. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Jonathunder" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of six months.

If Jonathunder (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Jonathunder is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within six months of this motion or if Jonathunder resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Jonathunder shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Jonathunder may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Don't forget to sign your loyalty pledge for the WMF!

The Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines are up for ratification in the near-future, and if they go through, "all advanced rights holders" will be "required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct:". This will likely be required as a precondition for becoming an admin, and it's expected that all current advanced rights holders make this affirmation at some point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It also seems to be saying that all admins will have to undergo compulsory training about the Code of Conduct. That's going to go down well. Hut 8.5 08:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"The goal of preventive work is to make users of public Wikimedia Foundation wikis and others under the UCoC aware that it exists, and promote voluntary adherence to the code." (bold is mine) seems to be conflict there. VS "should be required to affirm". You can't have something that is both voluntary and required. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course you can. You're not required to edit, but if you volunteer to do so, you are required to follow consensus. You're not required to be an admin, but if you volunteer for the permissions, you are required to follow WP:ADMIN. Levivich 13:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, that brings up interesting (read: boring) philosophical questions: 1. Do I consider Wikipedia to be a public utility? Yes. 2. Do I consider myself to be a public servant? Sort of. El_C 13:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see it spelled out somewhere what parts of normal admin behaviour (threatening people with blocks unless they do what we tell them, checking people's contributions for problems) are going to be outlawed by the UCoC. So far I understand that Fram wasn't allowed to do that, but that T&S functionaries were allowed to do that to Fram. Any "training" should go through the Fram example in detail so we can all understand the UCoC. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: I am very confused by your request. The UCoC enforcement guidelines apply equally to T&S staff and enwiki admins. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I guess I am the one who is confused. I truly do not understand who (if anyone) would have violated the UCoC during the Fram saga, where I asked what hounding is. I still don't know whether the Fram case involved hounding. I do know that a lot of people left. So I would like to understand what happened in the light of whether UCoC could have help prevent any of it. —Kusma (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: Go to "Enforcement by types of violations". Then read "On-wiki UCoC violations" and specifically the part that mentions "Single-wiki UCoC violations". –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, hounding is defined by the UCoC as following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them. If problems are continuing after efforts to communicate and educate, communities may need to address them through established community processes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

So those of us old admin don't have to sign a loyalty oath. Golly gee, that makes it all better.... First, they will eventually force every admin to tattoo 666 on their forehead or similar or they will lose their bit. The Foundation has a long history of encroaching on the community, examples are easy to find. Ask Fram. Second, I'm not so selfish to only be concerned about ME. I'm against forcing any editor to do so. I was selected by this community, I serve this community, when this community thinks I've outlived my usefulness, I will step down. I don't serve or work for the Foundation. They are supposed to serve the Community, but that's a laugh. The Universal Code of Conduct is about exerting control over the community. Things like hounding, etc are already covered in policy here. I will not, under any circumstance, sanction someone based on enforcement of the UCoC. Period. If they want to bit strip me as an office action for saying so, then screw them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: Since the WMF has not clarified what your mandatory political indoctrination will entail, I thought I'd grab some examples from the closest equivalent in the meta:Anti Harassment Program at meta:Community Development/WikiLearn/Identifying and Addressing Harassment Online. They offered this training as a pilot program for the large-scale UCoC training that is soon to be implemented. While the WMF didn't post those materials online (wonder why? they said they would on the talk page), here's the notes the French Wikipedia users took on the training: w:fr:Projet:Lutte contre le harcèlement/Formations WMF. Microsoft Translator has given an interesting quote, such as stereotypes including "bias towards young people (considering that a young person is too immature to contribute or become an admin)".

I wonder if !voting at RfA that a user is too immature to be an admin will be in violation of the UCoC? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Merely suggesting that a core concept within sociology/social anthropology actually describes "meaningful distinctions among people" would appear to be a violation of UCoC, as it currently stands. [32] The document is a badly-worded and contradictory mess, and regardless of what it is supposedly trying to 'enforce', nobody who cares about elementary logic or the English language should endorse it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I completely agree with you that the section you mentioned is very poorly worded (for me it implies that things like "caste" are meaningful distinctions one could make among people). However, the enforcement guidelines were written by a separate team of people. Sadly, the community is solely being asked to vote on the guidelines here. Voting against them won't change anything in the UCoC proper. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

In which case, the only appropriate response is to refuse to participate in any vote which might be seen as giving 'UCoC proper' legitimacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. While I think the header of this post is certainly cute, it's very much misleading. I've just made a substantial comment about the matter here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• This is not going to end well if they genuinely expect me to sign an affirmation pledging my undying love of the WMF in order to continue volunteering my time to help them. Without naming names, many are jack-asses and the group as a whole is dysfunctional except when it comes to preserving their own jobs. I didn't mention names, so that's not a personal attack, right? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: (not sure how serious you are being here) As far as I am aware, no one is suggesting anyone sign an actual pledge to the WMF. There is talk about making an affirmation acknowledging you'll enforce the UCoC, but that basically doesn't apply to current enwiki admins. [putting aside the matter of the training] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  To answer your question: very serious. I'm not the only one who feels this way, I'm just more willing than most to say it publicly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Loyalty oaths, including the Pledge of Allegiance have a long, ugly history. It’s enough to publish an objective yardstick for conduct and inform everyone that this is how they will be judged. No pledges are required. Unfortunately our codes of conduct frequently contradict policies designed to protect our content, and they are subject to actualization that is much further from perfect than it should be. Is this a social media platform or a broad compendium of facts? The code was written by master socializers who have less clue about content. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• I don't get why some people present "it currently only applies to new admins, not to existing ones" as if that is somehow a good argument. The organisation taking all the credits and money they can get from the Wikipedia content and brand (which they recently tried to claim for themselves as well), the organisation making a living from the work of unpaid volunteers and giving very little in return (server maintenance and perhaps the work of the growth team seem to be the exceptions), now want to get the people keeping those Wikipedia sites functioning (not on a server level, but on many other levels) to sign a pledge to uphold a policy they haven't asked for or decided upon, and to force these same people to follow hours of some undefined training on how to uphold that same unwanted policy and to get some certification before they would be allowed to function as admins. Instead of supporting the Wikipedias, they are reducing the pool of potential admins even further, and alienating the WMF further from the editing and adminning communities. Fram (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Fram: I don't think "it currently only applies to new admins, not to existing ones" is necessarily a good argument, but it is factually accurate as far as the affirmations go. I point it out because many current admins keep saying variations "I'm not signing a loyalty oath" despite them clearly not having to (and that assuming you think enforcing the UCoC is the same as unconditional loyalty to the WMF, I guess). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• In other collaborative projects (e.g. open source software) it's normal to ask all contributors to agree to a code of conduct. In my job I regularly have to affirm that I've read and will abide by ethical guidelines before attending conferences, submitting papers for publication, etc. And we already have everyone agree to the Terms of Use, which includes many conduct rules, on every single edit. I don't see how asking only admins to affirm, at some point that is to convenient to them, that they'll follow the UCoC, is a big deal. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, as soon as the sentence "The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people" is explained, and Para 3.3 is rewritten so that it's not confusing gibberish, then maybe. Though, as others have mentioned, the WMF can whistle if they think I'm providing my real name to them, as I wouldn't trust certain parts of the Fundation to tie their own shoelaces, let alone administer reliable data protection. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that that's poorly worded. Has it been discussed anywhere, apart from the talk page section AndyTheGrump linked above? – Joe (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Joe Roe: It's not just poorly worded, it's actively offensive. The fact it doesn't appear to have been discussed apart from Andy's section probably tells you how few actual editors have read this. Which also suggests that the UCoc is going to be thrown at millions of unsuspecting editors. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've read over the UCoC and it strikes me as anodyne, as these things go. How we're getting "loyalty oath" in people's mind's I don't know, aside from habitual determination to prove that the English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable. I agree with Joe Roe, it is normal (if controversial among the ill-disposed) to have a code of conduct in open source projects. If you think that's going to be used as a weapon then that speaks to governance, but the existence of such has become standard as people recognize that communities, as they grow larger, cannot govern themselves without one. I would also say that there's a developing expectation that projects have one, as that speaks to the project's priorities regarding its contributors. As a contributor to the English Wikipedia since 2003, I can say that the level of toxicity toward other users condoned here has no doubt driven off many people who would otherwise have been good contributors. I think any number of us have internalized it to the point that we don't notice it, and that doesn't speak well of the community. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think para 3.1 (apart from the race/ethnicity sentence I mentioned above) is actually the least problematic part of the UCoc, but it begs the question as to why it couldn't simply have been merged into Para 4 of the ToU, rather than creating yet more layers of WMF bureaucracy. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"To keep the Terms of Use readable and concise, some information is separated out into other documents. For instance, the Licensing Policy and Commons Licensing Policy are included as links. Agreeing to the Terms of Use means agreeing to those documents as well. The separation of the Universal Code of Conduct will allow it to be more detailed if necessary. It will also make it simpler to update based on our changing needs as a movement." – what §18 of the UCoC FAQ says. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, except that from personal experience of administrating large systems with widely geographically spread users, you really don't want your "rules" spread over more than one document. You're lucky if your users can manage to read one, let alone two. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Just mentioning this, not endorsing it. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just an observation and a question: I work quite a lot with law-texts and court-rulings, especially from German and, to a lesser extent, French law, but also have to look at English and US court rulings from time to time (it comes with my job). What strikes me here is, that, afaics, despite being named "Universal Code of conduct", imho the whole structure and use of words, the legalese if you will, is tilted towards those two mentioned last, with an emphasis of using US ways of formulating law texts/contracts. Those as a rule don't translate well into other languages, and have a different underlying philosophy to boot. Does anyone know if law-experts were heard, and if yes: where did they come from? If the answer is somewhere on Meta, I beg your pardon, but the whole over there is tl.dr...reminds me of this :). Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Lectonar: WMF is a US-based company, so just like the Terms of Service, I'd expect this to be in terms native to their jurisdiction. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: Thank you for your answer, and yes, that's what I thought. But if I understand correctly, they will just translate the UCoC into other languages, and have it applied it to whatever Wikimedia project they are supporting, even if the project isn't based in the US. So calling it universal is at least hubris, imho. Not to talk of all the legal problems which might arise. Lectonar (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I tend to see this as a non-issue, given that many open source projects with participants in multiple jurisdictions have codes of conduct, unless there is some reason why Wikipedia/the WMF is special? Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• One might mention the sheer size of Wikipedia, so yes, I see a difference there. But as for a hammer all problems are nails, I just look at the (legal) problems and implications that might arise. And I am not comfortable with the way this is going, but that's just a gut feeling. Lectonar (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• The more people refer to UCOC as "loyalty oath" and training as "indoctrination", the more I look forward to voting to ratify. Some folks seem to have forgotten about the community consultation phases and the makeup of the drafting committee. Levivich 12:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Considering that the WMF have mde it clear that they're going to be re-running the vote with minor tweaks to the policy until they get their desired result, I'm unsure that it really matters anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• You're just making that up. Levivich 19:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Levivich: I think you'll find that I'm not. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do WMF sometimes make startlingly boneheaded decisions? Yes. Are they the Evil Empire? No. They are a corporation in 2022 trying to deal with a culture that was originally primarily developed by young white men, and in 2022 that culture can occasionally cause problems, some of them very damaging. The reason that sounds familiar is because a lot of other organizations (and in a few cases entire industries) are dealing with the exact same thing. valereee (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have realized once again that misunderstandings and lethargy can cause more going wrong in the world than cunning and wickedness do. At least, those two are certainly less common. (von Goethe, J.W., The Sorrows of Young Werther, [33]) WMF is well stocked with misunderstandings and lethargy. You are right that there is a real problem, but let's be skeptical that they've found the solution. It is quite possible they will make things worse. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Open to that. I do understand the instinct to do something! Anything! People do panic. valereee (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think precisely zero people commenting here are unaware or indeed opposed to dealing with the problems that you mention. However, one could argue that the way it is being done is precisely the ham-fisted way that the WMF regularly conducts its work. Now, yes, partly this is because the Foundation is trying to create a one-size-fits-all-wikis model which means it is trying to cope with issues that enwiki doesn't have, such as articles being "fixed" to a particular political view by a ruling Arbcom or cadre of admins (there are specific examples of this). However, partly it is because is trying to strictly codify what editors cannot do, and that inevitably ends up with disruptive elements saying "well, it doesn't specifically say I can't do this" (just look at the introduction and the first three points of Para 3.1 - they're full of holes). Not to mention, in 3.3, Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view, which is pretty much a description of thousands upon thousands of edits per day, both is DS areas and outside them. That's not workable. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm just obtuse, but couldn't Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view be interpreted to prevent us from keeping WP:UNDUE material out of a series of articles? Would pushing one scholar's views into a footnote because of due weight as a result of Talk:CSS Baltic#New Albany? be "manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts" because it was decided to de-weight Bisbee's view? Hog Farm _Talk 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sure this is well-meaning, but given the WMF's tendency to foul up everything they touch, it makes me nervous. This will either be weaponized or ignored more than the speed limit. Maybe I've been listening to the hourly radio news too much, but this makes me think, given that I'm one of a shrinking number of open conservative-leaning people here, and that I primarily write in a subject matter area (American Civil War/Confederate stuff) that isn't on the popular side of political stuff right now, that I'm probably gonna be forced out for political reasons in another year or two. And for those who say there's no inherent political bias on Wikipedia, imagine the difference in community reaction for a new user who created a page saying "I love Trump, make Trump king" vs one who created "I love Obama, make Obama king". I am NOT endorsing either politician, just using this as an example Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I do not understand all that is involved here. But this seems to be handing over to someone other than our local community of editors the right to determine, for example, who can and cannot be an admin. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul August (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • 🙄 No. Levivich 19:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• If WMF thinks that I am going to sign some "loyalty oath" or take unpaid training classes, well—I'll let Lily Allen respond to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade: Why is loyalty oath in quotes? It's not actually in the proposed guidelines. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not in those exact words, no. I would hope I do not have to explain the use of scare quotes. That aside, I will not "pledge allegiance to the UCoC" (yes, hey, those exact words don't appear there either; please don't bother telling me that). I will promise to follow and enforce the standards of conduct that the English Wikipedia community has reached a consensus on; that and nothing else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so nothing you just said is incompatible with the enforcement guidelines (forgetting the training thing which I am not going to talk about right now). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Well, let's not "forget about" that; it's part of the proposal. And are you then telling me that if I refuse to sign such a pledge, or to take any such training—what happens then? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade: From my individual perspective, it is unclear what would happen to you if you didn't take the training, so I can't exactly answer that question. I'm still waiting to get a response from someone via email, so I don't feel comfortable talking about it until I receive one.
  As for what would happen if you refused to sign the affirmation, nothing. While I am just a single member of the committee, and the draft was made the whole, I personally can't see any other way to interpret that section. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Non-admin editor here. I really don't understand the pushback from many of the editors above. The policy is clear and easily understandable to me. With only one bit of what could maybe be read as virtue signalling; the note on race and ethnicity, overall it strikes me as something that you'd see in many employment handbooks or open source projects in 2022. Though I know signing an affirmation on this is only required for certain advanced permissions beyond the typical editor set, I would be more than happy to sign it as a regular editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• If you're the sort of person that thinks "virtue signalling" is a thing, and you think that sentence is an example of it, I don't think you've read the objections to it very well. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I said it could be read as virtue signalling, not that I read it as virtue signalling. There is after all a difference between saying "I think X is Y" and "I see how someone else could think X is Y". As for the objections, I've read them repeatedly over the last few days as this discussion unfolded. As I said, I don't understand the pushback on it as the code seems pretty standard for codes of conduct you'd expect to find in modern employment handbooks or open source software projects, and nothing that has been written here has explained why some editors/admins are against it other than the surface level "this is a bad idea" or "this is badly written". If I could be so bold Black Kite, instead of biting at someone who doesn't understand your concerns, perhaps you could explain them beyond that surface level. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• It wasn't really a bite, even though I believe that the use of the term "virtue signalling" as a negative is completely illogical. The WMF's statement says The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people". Forgetting "race" for a moment (that's a completely different argument) many people do take their ethnicity as a meaningful dstinction between themselves and others - and when you think about it is obviously one - it is major part of many people's self-identity. So for the WMF to say that they don't endorse ethnicity as a meaningful distinction, they're actually doing the very opposite of "virtue signalling" - they're telling people that their ethnicity is irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • But ethnicity is irrelevant...when it comes to UCOC and its enforcement. Come on, you're an adult, you understand perfectly well what that means is that we don't discriminate based on race or ethnicity, and you're not opposed to that, you agree with that, obvi. Maybe it's not well-written, and that's a reason to go over to Meta and suggest better language (cuz that's what the evil WMF overlords want from us now... our feedback! The bastards!). It's not a reason to oppose the ucoc or ucoc enforcement. It's a complete straw man to argue that this line is somehow not respecting peoples ethnic identities. Levivich 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• C'mon, you must understand the problem with that paragraph. Even if I believed that is what the WMF meant (and I strongly suspect it was written by someone who believes that race and ethnicity are the same thing, but whatever), then since ethnicity is clearly a part of many people's self-identity, why single it out like this? Why not include gender, sexual identity, sexual orientation, age, religion etc, etc? It specifically picks out those two as something the WMF "doesn't endorse". It makes no sense whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ethnicity being a major part of a person's self-identity in their personal life? Sure, I agree that it's an important thing for many people. But equally for many people, including myself, ethnicity is absolutely meaningless. While I may have citizenship of two countries because of my birth, I have no care for the arbitrary lines on the map that make up those countries. Though straying into FORUM territory, my perfect ideal for this planet is that anyone can live their life freely anywhere they want. Countries kinda get in the way of that.
  However when taken in context, by my reading, that is not why that statement is there. That statement is there because there are a subset of people who use ethnicity (and race) purely in a derogative manner. It is clear to me from the context of that subsection, it is only targeting editors who would use any such identifier in a derogative manner. The reason why I said it could be read as "virtue signalling" was precisely because it was not needed. The WMF could have left ethnicity and race in the list of unacceptable differentiators, without comment and without making what can be read as a political statement on whether or not those are valid distinctions to make. It fulfils the criteria of "virtue signalling" because objectively it has no effect. To use another editor's ethnicity in a derogative manner is a violation of the UCoC regardless of whether the WMF believe or do not believe it to be a meaningful distinction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• And most of that I agree with. But see what I wrote in reply to Levivich above. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I just don't like that "note" because it seemingly implies that intelligence, appearance, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, etc. are all meaningful distinctions one can make amongst people. I feel that alone is enough case to just axe that parenthetical statement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Someday Wikipedia might have to fire WMF and replace them with something better. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• As I said over at Meta, there's a big difference between supporting the UCoC itself, and supporting the enforcement guidelines, which are a clear overreach. No other volunteer role on these projects has mandatory training mandated by the back office, or a forced pledge of loyalty to a document. I've seen some trying to deny that this is an attempt to force every single admin on every single project to do this "affirmation" as they call it, but the enforcement guidelines state pretty clearly say that it will be expected right away from new or renewing holders of advanced permissions, and eventually from existing ones. So, for example, if an admin takes a break from being an admin for a few months, 'crats would now be required to ask for proof of "affirmation" to the UCoC before restoring the flag. Failure to do so means the 'crats are now in violation of the enforcement guidelines and subject to removal for not following the UCoC. This is not ok and it will adversely effect this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Hate speech is not the biggest issue at en.wiki, but formally banning hate speech is very welcome, especially at Wikipedias in other languages (anyone remember Kubura?). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• The exact wording about existing admins is "This may be changed on review after a year following the ratification of these guidelines." Call me cynical, but I think this is a code for "We know there will be a revolt if we try to impose it on everyone immediately, so we will wait until it is well established first." Zero^talk 11:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Zero0000: I've said this elsewhere, but that review would still require community ratification. Personally, I would not support that change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

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 if this is the right place to post this, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters has been going on for more than seven days, which is the usual length of a deletion discussion, and a final statement on this discussion by an administrator, or another user, would be helpful. Thanks! --Historyday01 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

AfDs are not required to be closed exactly at seven days. That one is complex and lengthy and probably takes more than the normal time for any admin to close. It should not be an NAC. Star Mississippi 01:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I know they aren't required to close after exactly seven days, but it could be helpful, that's all. I'm guessing by NAC you mean non-admin closure (I don't know every acronym) and sure, it can be closed by an admin. I think that could help. Historyday01 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Star Mississippi. Sure, it's been running for a few days past the normal 7, but there's still constructive discussion going on, so there's no hurry to close it. And, I also agree that this one is complicated enough that it needs to be closed by admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I can agree it should be closed by an admin, sure. But, I also think the discussion is starting to peter out, so I'd say it should be closed at least in the next couple days, if not today, then maybe Monday or Tuesday. --Historyday01 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Historyday01 There is a specific place, Wikipedia:Closure requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I submitted a closure request there. Historyday01 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I left a message on closure request page. Basically: stop worrying about closing it. Some AFDs run 2 or 3 weeks. The speed of the close isn't an objective. Getting wide input from the community is, and complex issues like this (ie: is it better as a CAT only, not List article?) often take extra time. There is no legitimate reason to rush to close based solely on $x days having past, that isn't how we determine closing times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Contrary to the statement that discussion is starting to peter out, I see a half-dozen new participants in the past 24 hours. Probably due to the added visibility of being mentioned here. Since people obviously are still interested in discussing this, I've relisted the AfD to give them the opportunity to do so without the clock ticking so loudly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Good job, I should have done that. Discussions like this, we WANT it to be long enough and visited enough so that at the end of the day, we are confident the consensus is truly global. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not a great idea to have one editor bludgeoning the process, though... Primefac (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Apparantly Historyday01 thinks it was a wierd decision ([34]). Combined with random aspersions at the same time (those who support this deletion will definitely try to apply to the knife to the Lists of LGBT-related films category), it's not a great look for someone who !voted to keep the article to then come here demanding an immediate close of the discussion, as those prone to such suspicions might suspect an attempt at walling-off any further delete !votes. SN54129 16:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not bludgeoning the process and I didn't "demand" any close to discussion (I only suggested it), it just seemed like the right thing to do. I don't care about looks or anything else, SN54129. The usual suspects, Primefac in this case, accuse me of "bludgeoning." I am not surprised at all. I only wanted the discussion to end so we could move on with the page and not keep in the lurch. Those in favor of deletion, merging, and keeping the page have all made good points, and I would like to put those into practice, but feel that is not possible until the discussion comes to an end. Its that simple. Since the discussion is continuing, who am I to disagree with administrators who have more power on this site than I do? That's the gist I'm getting out of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how I've become one of the "usual suspects", but I made my point specifically because you have added the most text (27% at current) and the second-most number of edits (~30%, only behind the nominator, and their count is high only because of a back-and-forth with editors #3 and #4). Then you ask for the discussion to be closed, then question the admin that relisted. Maybe "bludgeoning" is too strong of a word, but "seems to be more invested than is strictly necessary" is a bit of a mouthful. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I can admit I am invested in this topic and I thought posting here could do some good, although I admit it was somewhat misguided and I probably shouldn't have posted it in the first place. In any case, since the admins have made their decision, I don't have any power to challenge that, and their decision is final. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Anyone can relist an AFD, so that isn't even an admin decision, although it is in our realm. The key takeaway should be that several people here don't care what the outcome will be, but they do care that it continues as long as their is interest in the AFD. That is how you build a strong consensus, and in the end, no matter how it ends, if it ends with a strong consensus either way, it likely won't need to be revisited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ok. I do think it is foolhardy to continue it, as I'd rather have some certainty in terms of the future of the page, but it has been re-listed, and the discussion goes where it goes. At the same time, I find it very unlikely that a strong consensus will appear in the next week. Pages can revisited for AfDs all the time, so I don't think a consensus would stop anyone, they would just nominate it anyway. I've had a number of pages I created be nominated for AfDs and it can be very nervewracking. This is one of those times. I have learned from this discussion to not post about AfDs on here in the future, as this discussion has been, in my opinion, mostly fruitless. Historyday01 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

By your own admission, sort of, the main reason you didn't want it relisted is you thought it would be closed a keep if you got it closed early. You're so invested in this article, you seemed to have forgotten that what we try to do is what is best for the encyclopedia as a whole, not just one person or group. If you think giving more people the ability to participate is a bad thing (and that is exactly what you are implying in the totality of your comments), then you need to work on your collaborative skills. You need to just walk away and ignore the discussion; when it is over, it is over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 28 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.

Ukrainian localities allegedly under Russian control

I see today a lot of edits like this. The edits are not acceptable, since this information must be verified by reliable and independent sources. This is not possible at the moment, with the possible exception of large cities (and even there we have problems, for example the information added to Odessa is reliably cited but is most likely incorrect). All sources which report on the actual engagements are either Russian or Ukrainian and thus are not independent. Even if both Russian and Ukrainian sources report the same it still does not mean the information is verified. Would it be possible to stop this by edit filters (for example to prohibit similar additions to non-extended-confirmed users)? --Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost as if an encyclopedia shouldn't cover events in real time and should only document them AFTER the fact. Oh and support any technical means to limit misinformation but with thousands of reliable sources regularly churning out rumor as fact, I don't see howSlywriter (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation reproduced by reliable sources is indeed a problem (see my example of Odessa above), but a lot of information is now being added without any sources at all, or cited to clearly affiliated sources. This should be stopped by edit filters and/or reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to wrap my head around the how. Could a version of edit filter 180 be tweaked to flag unsourced statements in specific existing articles? Copyediting would get flagged, but at least there would be a list for editors to work through.Slywriter (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how to select the set of articles in the best way. An obvious solution would be every article in any subcategory (of any level) of Category:Ukraine, but this is possibly too broad.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter and Ymblanter: Logging at 1188 (hist · log). Might be too spammy to be useful but it can be refined once we see what people are actually doing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• I used to police "hot spot" articles, and then as now, wish we had a 72 hour rule, where info can't be posted in rapidly changing political events until 72 (or some other number) hours after the source publishes. Part of this is like a game to some editors, mad dash to wedge their edit in before others, and it just creates a cluster-fudge of edits and reverts. We aren't a newspaper, our articles are supposed to be reflective, not reactive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would support such a rule if a proposal has been made.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't. The WP:READER doesn't care about a cluster-fudge of edits and reverts; that's sausage-making stuff. What's the end result? Articles that are sometimes wrong, but usually fixed. With this limit, articles about current political events would be almost always wrong, and couldn't be fixed, because rules. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a newspaper and people coming here for current breaking information are sadly in the wrong place. We should focus on making sure our articles deal with quality enduring coverage of an event like this, and that means making sure we have it right about if and when certain territories are occupied rather than rushing to add it. That is, there is no DEADLINE to get it right. --Masem (t) 05:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's roughly the WP:RSBREAKING guideline:

  Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements.

  —Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

911 (the DAB page) mystery

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 anyone figure out what caused 911 (the WP:DAB page) to have its 2017 indef semi lifted? (See also RfPP permalink.) El_C 16:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The protection moved with the article when it was moved to a new page title. The new redirect didn't have any protection to start with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Floq, the protection was applied after the move, though. El_C 17:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

after one move; before another. —-Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I had opened the full log of another page by mistake. Thanks for bearing with me! El_C 18:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Is creating an account evasion of an IP block?

Let me start by emphasizing that this is not a complaint about @Kinu:'s action. I'm just seeking clarification of what our policy is.

This came out of my investigation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haneywonders. Kinu blocked an IP. Apparently, the person they were trying to block then created an account and continued to edit using that account, and then that account was blocked for block evasion.

But, is that really block evasion? The IP talk page was left a message which said, ...consider creating an account for yourself.... So, they did exactly what the message told them to do. I think it's hard to call that block evasion. Maybe our messaging is just disfunctional? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally I'd say not, for that very reason; they have literally just done what we have asked them to, which would seem like entrapment otherwise. On the other hand, policy is more vague, and takes a slightly Cadite eos approach: User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked, seemingly without discrimination. I suppose it comes down to whether they continue the disruptive behavior that got their IP blocked in the first place... SN54129 14:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Surely the point is that the "consider creating an account" is prefixed by If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, which means you didn't make the edits that got the IP blocked? FDW777 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, it is evasion. The message is for someone who just happened to get a blocked IP assigned to them. The block is for the person who's editing disruptively, not their handle. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is 100% block evasion. The shared IP notice reads: "If ... you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account ..." (emphasis added). And yes the messaging is dysfunctional: /64 IPv6 ranges tend not to be dynamic, but there is no way to disable Twinkle automatically inserting the shared IP notice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's block evasion. But while I often say indefinite is not infinite, this is IMO one of those cases when it would have been better to not impose an indefinite block. I'm assuming what the IP did wasn't enough to earn an instant indefinite block which wasn't done because it's an IP and so this block was only for evasion. If so, if the editor moving to the new account that will probably be better for everyone. And creating a single account and continuing to edit is the sort of thing which could easily be done in good faith through misunderstanding. And it's not like the editor editing after 1 week is guaranteed to be a problem. So a better solution, rather than indefinitely blocking them until they make a successful appeal, block the account for a week, it imposes the original block with a little extra and warn them that blocking applies to them whether they edit as an IP or account. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Well nevermind, the SPI shows multiple accounts. Even without looking at the timing, creating so many is unreasonable and cannot be blamed on anything we did. It still looks to me like based on what was known at the time, it might have been better not to indefinite, in the end it didn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A user on a blocked IP making their first ever account will surely be looked after when they explain themselves. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I really think it is a bad idea to tell people that creating one (1) account is automatically block evasion.

Also, how are you going to enforce this without asking new editors to publicly disclose their IP addresses, which is something we should never encourage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is the WP:DUCKTEST.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe editing while blocked somewhere else, even another IP, falls under the spirit of the WP:ILLEGIT policy: Evasion of sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts.—Bagumba (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• RoySmith, It appears Kinu blocked a IPv6 range /64, I’m in agreement with Ivanvector I do not believe the IPv6 /64 to be dynamic, but AGF, the IP is following instruction and creating an account as the message they received directed, There is the duct test, to determine potential problematic edits. The problem is really everything, even the very message left on their address. Celestina007 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please create Template:Location map data documentation

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

---

I am looking to revise some of the wording (and to disable the auto-hide things for previewing, and... the list snowballs!) at Template:Location map data documentation for an edit request, but I cannot even start working on it in a sandbox. Would a sysop kindly mirror that template to the sandbox page for me? Artoria2e5 🌉 14:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Artoria2e5: Template:Location map data documentation/sandbox has been created. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 28 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.

(Talk) page Martin Heidegger

Duplicate discussion of thread at WP:ANI. --Jayron32 15:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's currently a long discussion active on the talk page of Martin Heidegger considering the lead section of the article. At the moment Martinevans123 is doing everything in his power to escalate things. He's making edits on the talk page without discussing the matter. He doesn't have consensus. And more importantly: he's making edits of which he knows they're completely ridiculous; which is simply a form of vandalism. Can a neutral admin please intervene? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC) OP has already raised this at WP:ANI#User Martinevans123 ignoring discussion & instigating edit war; I don't think there's any need to have this discussion over two separate noticeboards. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC close review: Fox News RfC

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

---

An RfC was held at Talk:Fox_News#RfC_about_Fox_being_described_as_Conservative, where the final tally was 10 in favor of retention of the text in the lede, 5 to remove. User:Compassionate727, appallingly, sided with the 5 and found a "rough consensus against inclusion". Am aware of WP:NOTAVOTE, but, there were quality opinions all-around. No trolls, no socks, no I-don't-like-it. One cannot just toss a 2:1 on its head without a darn good reason, and there isn't a good reason here. FWiW, I did not participate in the RfC. Zaathras (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Revert closure - Classic WP:BADNAC: "A non-admin closure is not appropriate... [when] the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." Obviously, deciding whether Fox News is a "conservative" media outlet or not is clearly always going to be controversial 100% of the time. And, closing an RfC in favor of the 2-to-1 minority voter is often going to be controversial as well. Additionally, Compassionate727's closing statement brings up points and policies that were never brought up in the discussion, implying that there are some WP:SUPERVOTE aspects going on here. I've read through the discussion and I don't see any reason to close this against the numerical majority. Both sides had valid policy-based arguments. One side had a 2-to-1 majority. At best, if the closer was unconvinced by the arguments to keep the word "conservative" in the lead, they could have closed it as "no consensus" and retained the status quo. I'd recommend reverting the closure and allowing an uninvolved administrator close this RfC. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not an admin here. I think we should have given him a bit of time to respond to his talk page and reconsider the close before we just brought it here, but besides that I agree it was closed incorrectly. The correct decision was probably to rule in favor of inclusion, but no consensus would have been the only other acceptable option. Closing in favor of exclusion in this case should almost never be done. Definitely would recommend admins to overturn this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• I too think that the close focuses on points that weren't really raised in the discussion, and certainly weren't part of the RfC basis. The opening comment conceded it was conservative, and it was just whether it should be noted in the first line, and thus, unsurprisingly, later participants didn't spend much time trying to prove what wasn't up for dispute. Advise reclose. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Points for a gutsy close, despite an inevitable challenge. It was indeed surprising to see. I don't think I would've come to that conclusion, but I get what C727 is saying. C727 didn't think people adequately oriented their arguments and evidence to MOS:FIRST, and looked for arguments which did. The issue is, there's room for interpretation, and many of the people supporting inclusion did talk about the order of words, presence in the first sentence, defining characteristics, main features, distinctive feature, etc. Some of the arguments for retaining it are understandably exasperated, because brand new users like the person who started this RfC remove the "conservative" label or challenge it with WP:FALSEBALANCE arguments all. the. time. It's a tough situation, because it's hard to think "oh, another new user making the same arguments -- I definitely need to bring my A-Game in articulating a procedurally watertight response to this" and yet it's possible that a closer will come by in the end and dismiss mostly-relevant-but-half-hearted arguments like e.g. Gamaliel's per FormalDude, BobFromBrockley, Valjean, and over a decade of consensus. Like, yeah, it doesn't specifically address MOS:FIRST, but to what extent is he really expected to reiterate an argument that's been made so many times? It's tough, granted. I wouldn't trout C727 for the close, but don't think it's a good close, all things considered (I wasn't involved with this discussion, but am involved in several others at that page FWIW). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Recommend revert closure per Scottywong et al. soibangla (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ensorse closure. The NAC did focus on the points raised in the RFC and relevant policy like MOS:FIRST (even if that wasn't directly mentioned), so it wasn't like this decision pulled in novel aspects not at all brought up. But central to the closure, and which justifies this specific close, is this statement from it: "it is not clear from what little evidence has actually been cited during this discussion that this particular claim (rather than the much less contentious claim that Fox News has a conservative bias) is widely enough supported by RS to constitute due weight in the first sentence"...that is from the RFC there wasn't many in support of keeping it shoeing that Fox News was routinely called a conservative news channel, only that it was well established to have conservative bias. As the close suggests if a source survey was done and found that Fox was routinely called a conservative news channel that would have better supported that editors' arguments for keeping that word in the lede. The close gives an out that if this can be shown in the future, the RFC could be reversed. Thus this seems to be a valid closure. --Masem (t) 14:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Revert close – Clearly fits WP:BADNAC, and should be reviewed even if closed by an admin. Just a humorous aside, not an argument, I turned on Fox this morning and was informed that the reason Putin attacked Ukraine is because of radical, Green New Deal, Congress people pushing the Communist, climate change agenda. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Any specific reason why you couldn't wait for the closer's response to your challenge at their talk page, Zaathras. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you should first discuss with the closer and see what is their response to the challenge, which could lead to a reclose or self-revert, exactly to avoid the drama boards. You waited less than two hours, and the editor hasn't edited since yesterday. Isabelle ^🔔 15:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Wow. I'm not surprised this was controversial, but I wasn't expecting to wake up to an AN thread in the morning. I briefly mentioned during my closing statement and Rhododendrites has here expounded well why this was a particularly difficult consensus to assess: half-hearted arguments, a couple votes where I wasn't certain the editors understood that the RfC was only about the first sentence, salient policies that weren't cited but which I felt a couple of editors had alluded to. At some level, many of the votes felt more like habitual, absentminded quibbling than a serious attempt to produce a quality first sentence. Like I said in the close, the first sentence is supposed to define the topic, and I didn't feel like editors had adequately demonstrated that Fox News' conservatism defines it to the same extent as its being a television news channel―but as Rhododendrites observed, they weren't exactly trying, either. Moreover, I felt like the current first sentence is unwieldy, as one or two other editors had noted, which isn't many, but I wasn't convinced that I could interpret the lack of commentary from others as a positive consensus that it's okay as it is. Like I said in my closure, the consensus I found was quite rough; perhaps I should have said that there was no consensus at all. Moreover, as I hinted at the end, I wasn't expecting my findings to be remotely final; in a sense, I was hoping to prod the article's regular editors to draft some serious, substantial proposals to improve the first sentence (and the lead as a whole), rather than just making the placement of the word "conservative" a flashpoint. I suppose I may have accidentally supervoted in doing so, although I'm halfway convinced that the only difference between a supervote and a valid closure is whether or not you like it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:47, 28 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.

Isaiah Brown Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I am writing to create an article about artist/musician 'Isaiah Brown.' I have created a draft in my sandbox and am willing to share it! Here is the name of the article. User: IsaiahBrownMusic/sandbox

As an independent artist, I'm struggling to figure out how this works, but open to learning and adding to my page, so listeners/fans can find more info on me seamlessly.

Thank you, Isaiah Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaiahBrownMusic (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@IsaiahBrownMusic: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can refer to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox deleted for copyright violation and editor advised on own Talk page and at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 08:54, 1 March 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 would like to ask for the lift of my topic ban on policy discussion on the draft space put in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Topic_Ban_Request for the latest thread on this ban.)

The reasons are

1. The topic ban was brought in the context of my dispute with other editors (Legacypac and Hasteur) who actively work on the draft space for cleaning up. Since they seem no longer active, hopefully, the same dispute will not arise.
2. Lifting the topic ban will allow me to communicate better regarding some of my activities in the draft space; see e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:List_of_draft_pages_on_science_and_engineering
3. I have one proposal to make on the draft space. It’s minor but I hope it would streamline some maintenance work.

(In the thread the topic ban was put, some editors mentioned I having made a death threat. This is a misunderstanding, plain simple and so shouldn't factor in the determination of the lift.)

@Primefac: -- Taku (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting the topic ban. It seems that it was put into effect in 2017, and was modified in 2019. I never fully understood it, having not been involved in the 2017 controversy, which apparently resulted in a ban on User:TakuyaMurata discussing drafts, which required him to engage in preterition so as to talk about them without talking about them. It seems that it was partly the result of conflict between Taku and User:Hasteur and User:Legacypac, and Hasteur and Legacypac wanted to keep draft space clean. That objective seems to me to go against the purpose of draft space, but I'm a computer scientist. It was revised in 2019 to be a general topic-ban on draft space by Taku, a somewhat more extensive but less convoluted thing. Hasteur has tragically died of covid, and Legacypac has been de facto banned. Unless anyone wants to reopen these quarrels that Taku has honorably avoided for five years, I suggest that the topic-ban be lifted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One small clarification: it is not my understanding that the topic ban was modified in 2019. There was some discussion that ultimately ended in non-consensus. I still routinely work on the draftspace (because, as I understand, there is no general topic ban on the draftspace). -- Taku (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Question Taku, could you please explain why this should be considered a "misunderstanding," and not something far more egregious? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, it was not taken as a death threat by the other party (RH); he has confirmed that. Second, the quarrel I had with RH was unrelated to the dispute on which the topic ban is about. If the community thinks that comment (which was obviously a mistake) was problematic enough, the community should decide on some other measure not the topic ban on the policy discussion. -- Taku (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that this diff was from 2016, amidst a discussion accusing the administrator of overzealous speedy deletion. Some years later the same admin was desysopped for, among other things, overzealous speedy deletion. This is not to excuse the comment, but to put it in context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly impressed with the allocution above. Point 1. is summarized as "They made me do it", which is not particularly in the vein of taking responsibility for improving one's own behavior. Taku chose their own words when in conflict with others, and I see no sense that there is any evidence that they understand why what they did was wrong, and how they have changed and modified their behavior while the ban was in effect. Point 2. and 3. are entirely about Taku's own needs and desires, and nothing about the effect of the disruption they caused on the project, and how they will modify their behavior to not do that anymore. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the kind of changes necessary to remove a ban. I just see a lot of blame shifting and how this ban affects Taku personally. That's not a sign of change. --Jayron32 17:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I can promise the disruption will not arise again in part because, after getting my Ph.D., I am much busier in real life. I simply don't have time to keep making policy proposals (except one minor one I want to make). The topic ban clearly taught me to be careful about not disrupting the project too much; so my behavior on making policy proposals will certainly change and I will be more careful about choice of words (so not cause death-threat misunderstanding). About Point 2. It's not entirely my need but also for others who want to engage me on the draftspace topics. Point 3. is also not just my desire; I still routinely work on the draftspace and, lifting the topic ban will allow me to make a propose that help the community maintain the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Support removal of the topic ban, per WP:ROPE. The above makes it clear that the disruption is unlikely to continue. --Jayron32 17:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I had reservations about supporting mostly for the same reasons as Jayron32 (i.e. no promise to not continue disruptive behaviour and no statement of understanding why the topic ban was imposed), but the above comment clears all that up. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal of the topic ban per WP:LASTCHANCE, an essay that avoids the rope metaphor. I supported the topic ban five years ago but it is time to lift it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - TakuyaMurata's comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Math-drafts appear to violate this topic ban. Since the comments so far would have not seemed out of place if I hadn't noticed the topic ban, I and other editors have been discussing the question with TakuyaMurata anyway. But I worry that in situations like this where an appeal is pending but not granted, not doing something to enforce the ban like a block or removal of comments just encourages bad behavior and not taking topic bans seriously, creates a bit of a loophole for violating the ban. -- Beland (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry but how did I violate the topic ban? For one thing, I have abstained and have provided some context. Do you mean to say "I do prefer drafts to be placed in the draft space" is a violation? (note I am talking about drafts not how the draft space should be used). This is one of the reasons for me to asking for the lift of the ban since it is unclear if just expressing some personal preference is a violation of the ban, and hiding my personal preference can hinder an effective communication (Point 2). I am quite willing to remove the comment if necessary, but removing the comment right now seems to give an impression it was a ban violation (so I am not doing that). It would be nice if the community can clarify this (by lifting the ban altogether or modifying it somehow). —— Taku (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - The above discussion illustrates that the current topic-ban is confusing and difficult to apply. It interferes with the ability of Taku to engage in discussion without having an obvious purpose. But I have already supported removal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Eh, this is pretty confusing. I'm not really convinced a violation has occurred. He's talking about a weird userspace page, not how and under what circumstances pages should be deleted from draftspace, which (as best as I can tell) is the dispute for which he was topic banned. Maybe he rather indirectly violated the letter of his ban, but not the spirit of it. AFAIC, if there was any violation, it was good faith confusion not requiring sanction. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The topic ban includes "any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed)," "discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed)", and "participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability (broadly construed)". I broadly construe Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Math-drafts to be part of the topic of draft namespace because it was specifically created to do the same thing as draft namespace without having the same deletion policy, which seems to be vexing TakuyaMurata. The policy question here is whether this shared user account is redundant to draft namespace. This is also an MfD concerning whether the draft namespace is more suitable for these files than userspace, so that seems to be pretty clearly subject to the ban. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages is an MfD which concerns whether it's appropriate to use lists to track drafts, once again because TakuyaMurata is experiencing friction with the Draft namespace deletion policy. Being topic banned doesn't mean you can participate in a discussion as long as you obstain from voting. Being banned means you cannot participate, and you must let other editors make the decision. Yes, such a ban prevents you from sharing your personal opinion and prevents you from communicating effectively with other editors in this area. That's the point of the ban, to stop your communications, because presumably the editors who enacted the ban decided that in the past your communications were so disruptive they prevented other editors from working efficiently or were abusive enough to editors they were creating a toxic working environment for some people. If editors want you to communicate effectively about drafts and think you have demonstrated that you are willing and able to be civil and constructive, they need to repeal the ban. If kept, perhaps it would be helpful to clarify that being banned from discussions means not posting to discussion pages at all, and that it applies to anything to do with drafts, whether in draft namespace or other namespaces. My recommendation would be just to create useful, reader-ready stub articles on the topics you think should have articles rather than continuing to argue about drafts or argue about arguing about drafts. -- Beland (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I've been following these discussions for half a decade and I still don't really understand what was the problem that led to the ban in the first place. Regardless, the two editors who so adamantly pushed for these sanctions are no longer around to be disrupted (one has tragically died and the other pulled off a suicide by admin) so I don't see what purpose these restrictions can possibly serve. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Since there's some confusion on this point, let me try to explain how we got here in the first place. Taku abandoned any number of incomplete stubs in draft space. These articles were completely unsuitable. When they were inevitably tagged for deletion Taku's reaction was often disruptive, at best. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 24 for a good example of this. Taku also, at times, moved articles that were in mainspace, and had been worked on by multiple people besides himself, back into draftspace. The net effect of these behaviors was to create unnecessary friction and waste lots of time, hence the topic ban. Like Jayron32, I see no real acknowledgement of the problems that led to the topic ban in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I object to the false narrative that I "abandoned any number of incomplete stubs" and the drafts "were completely unsuitable". The fact is that the drafts started by me have since been worked and most have been moved to mainspace (ask my fellow math editors). (In particularly, Principal orbit type theorem now exists in mainspace.) Also, I didn’t move articles in mainspace to the draftspace (which articles are you referring to?). There was a friction in that there was an attempt to mischaracterize these drafts as abandoned mainly by two editors (Legacypac and Hasteur). After they become inactive, it seems there has been a lot less friction. By the way, it is true, in hindsight, that I have created too many drafts. That’s a regret. We, including I, now know that would create a lot of maintenance issue. So, for the past few years, I have started very few drafts, if any; that’s the acknowledgment of the issue (I doubt the too-many-draft problem will arise again). —- Taku (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per the sentiment I expressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata, a precursor discussion to the one that implemented a topic ban. Around that time perception bending was nigh; while Taku may have not behaved perfectly, I doubt that they behaved in a manner to deserve a sanction (if they did, then they may have been pushed there {and to wits' end} by forces attempting to subvertly accomplish noncanonical draft and userspace "cleanup" {a dispute which is overarchingly dead due to G13 changes and the ideas expressed at DUD}). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:00, 26 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.

My report was archived without any action from admins

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive448#User:Mikythos reported by User:Mann Mann (Result: )

Is this[35][36][37] kind of behavior acceptable?! Mann Mann (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, they were edit warring, but so were you. I suspect you were following the WikiProject conventions, but that doesn't warrant an exemption to reverting. Follow Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution e.g. re-establish that consensus had not changed at the WikiProject, while inviting the other party to discuss.
They haven't edited in the days since, so we wouldn't block at this point per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. The assumption is that they understand the rules on edit warring and civility at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with the above; you were both edit warring, and there is no "being right" exemption to edit warring. Also, the situation is stale, the reported user seems to have voluntarily withdrawn from the edit war, which is what we want to happen rather than issuing blocks. --Jayron32 16:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

RfPP

is a mite backlogged, and my dog has ordered me to drop the keyboard and step away from the computer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Everything there is now dealt with. --Jayron32 16:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

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

Administrator changes

Modussiccandi

BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Potential SNOW delete of AfD related to Russia/Ukraine war

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 recently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magomed Tushayev and it appears to be swiftly heading towards a WP:SNOW delete result. I know that the AfD hasn't even been up for 24 hours yet, but there are some concerns that the article is potentially spreading misinformation related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which I'm trying to be particularly sensitive to lately. Since I created the AfD, I obviously can't close it. I'd ask that some admins keep an eye on it and consider closing it early per WP:SNOW if you think that's the right call. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I support a SNOW delete although I'm not confident enough to do it myself without further feedback here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I got it. I felt very comfortable deleting it after such a strong and unanimous turnout. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 2 March 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 page and user talk page move

Hello, User:Mksabbir appears to have tried to rename their account by moving their user/talk pages to User:Mk Sabbir Rahman and User talk:Mk Sabbir Rahman. It needs admin permission to move them back, because there was an intermediate move to draft space. The user is also asking on that talk page to be unblocked, on the basis of accidentally creating multiple accounts, but there's nothing in Mksabbir's log about a block. Could someone with the right permissions please move the pages back? Thanks. Storchy (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a draft to me. I've moved the draft page to draft and returned the user talk to its original location. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I commented on their talk page that they dont seem to have been blocked.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The plot thickens! Mksabbir007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Please see User talk:Mksabbir . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mksabbir Blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazipurnewsmk‎ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Universaladdress/ComicsAreJustAllRight 3X-banned

This is to notify the community that Universaladdress, also known as ComicsAreJustAllRight, Forensic Kidology and RiverCityRelay, has been de facto community-banned per the three-strike rule; they were first blocked as ComicsAreJustAllRight following an ANI discussion, followed by sockpuppetry blocks in December ([38][39][40]) and today ([41][42]). Please see the SPI for details. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Closure review: Merge Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Wikipedia controversies

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 discussion was closed by Slashlefty (talk · contribs) and does not meet the requirements of WP:RMNAC. They have been notified here and their only response was archiving the comment here. Given the clear lack of any effort by the closer here, I think the close should be vacated and left for an experienced editor or admin. ––FormalDude talk 08:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: We also had a dispute with this user, where, one user has stated that this user does not want to participate in any discussions. So maybe, he archived the discussions because he doesn’t want to follow you and participate in the discussion. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Failure to respond to a civil query is very poor behaviour indeed, and no-consensus closes almost always necessitate provision of some detail in the close. And yes, non-EC editors are unlikely to count as highly experienced NACs. Overturn, reclose by experienced editor Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  I told the user he could revert my edit. I archived the discussion as another user modified the close. I couldn't even revert it even if i wanted to, because of conflicting edits. sl (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  its opened sl (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close as participant. The closer has been around long enough to recognize and put an obvious and lingering no consensus discussion out to pasture. Per WP:RMNAC criteria: "The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)." - this merge discussion was up for 40 days (and 40 nights) and the last comment was almost four weeks in the past. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• You can reopen it i really don't care. I can't revert my close when others have made edits after me. sl (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's opened again. sl (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"They should have sent a poet" Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn. Inadequate close, ADMINACCT failure, editor is too new to know the expectations?

Why raise WP:RMNAC when this was not an RM? Go to WP:NAC for relevant good advice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 3 March 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.

Bad faith edit-summary comments by User talk:Bramhesh Patil

• Bramhesh Patil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maratha Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In general, User talk:Bramhesh Patil has made POV edits pushing Maratha empire in historical articles. While many are ok, others are blatant and they have so many warnings on their talk page (all throughout 3 years of activity) but for some reason no short or long-term blocks were sanctioned.

They have purposefully and blatantly made threats (WP:HOUNDING?) against User:Adhonorium for alleged POV pushing (may be it is true I didn't check, but this harrassment is unwarranted/uncivil). On the same edit summary, they promise to counter-vandalize wikipedia, specifically vandalizing pages about Mughals (Muslim rulers). Kiran_891 ^(TALK) 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

72-hour personal-attack block on User:Bramhesh Patil for calling someone an 'apparently Hindu-phobic editor' in their edit summary and, to add icing to the cake, promising to retaliate by doing 'vandalism' to the articles about Muslim rulers. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted a page in error

Sorry for being such a doofus, but I clicked the wrong page and deleted World Government (rather than the intended Draft:Word Government Movement, see User talk:MichaelMaas1986) and now restoration failed with a message including, "this transaction was aborted because the write duration (12.169790267944) exceeded the 3 second limit." Is there anyone reading this here who can get this done properly? I promise never to be this careless again, I can hardly say how embarrassing it is. – Athaenara ✉ 11:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Working on this. The page has thousands of revisions, so I guess the server choked on their number. Thus, I'll restore the history piecewise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you can do it if you restore in batches as opposed to all revisions at once; looks like Jo-Jo Eumerus is already on it. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It's back, bless your heart, Jo-Jo. – Athaenara ✉ 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Stuff happens. At least you didn't delete the front page. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I've re-connected the Wikidata item. Sometimes weird stuff happens if a Wikidata item is disconnected from a prominent topic for a relatively short amount of time (e.g. more than half an hour or so). Luckily, that didn't seem to be a problem here. Graham87 03:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Massive (vile) quote

Hi all - I couldn't quite think of the right place to bring this - it's a mixture of copyright concern, concern about NPOV, and a general 'good judgment' question. Please see Elliot Rodger#Videos, where there is an enormous chunk of transcript from one of his videos. Is this amount of quoted text reasonable from a copyright perspective? Does it serve any encyclopedic purpose? Other opinions would be very welcome. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs, and as of this writing it's been removed. A link to the transcript elsewhere would be sufficient. I agree with your points (length, copyright, encyclopedic purpose, judgment). Antandrus (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I'm unconvinced that Rodger is notable outside 2014 Isla Vista killings (indeed, until 9 January this year, his article did not exist even as a redirect, and there is little useful in his article that isn't in the main article). Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I agree, and it seems our usual tactic is to include a brief bio in the main article. BLP1E applies, as he never attained wiki-notability any other means. A BOLD redirect suggests itself. (Btw, it's a good article nomination at the moment.) SN54129 18:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Boldness may be contraindicated given the likelihood of low-number, but high-intensity objection; though if someone were to start a merge discussion, I'm pretty sure the votes would go in favor of such a move. --Jayron32 19:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The history can be deceptive. The redirect has existed for nearly 8 years, since the day after the event.[43] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it hasn't existed as an article (for any time) until is was suddenly created on 9 January without going through AFC. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I had started a discussion beforehand, to try and achive consensus. After a month of discussion, with no objections, I had split the relevant parts of the article to create Rodger's article. There was nothing outside of standard procedure, that I'm aware of. Also, the article can and will be added to include other information, in due time. Since it required consensus to create it, it should require to delete it. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 1:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. I don't think it adheres to our main tenets—copyright (massive quotes are against fair use) and neutrality (draws WP:UNDUE focus on one particular source)—or our mission; I don't think we should encourage the posting of misogynistic tirades, manifestos or anything else potentially against WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It was added here, and I note that that editor is suggesting a degree of WP:OWNership towards the article at the moment; hopefully it will not be re-added. SN54129 18:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the offending revisions per WP:RD1. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Girth Summit has failed to notify the editor who added this text of the existence of this discussion. I don't think you can sidestep this requirement by framing your post as only a policy/content question. (As Serial Number's comment above shows, discussion quickly turns to the topic of the editor's behavior.) Modulus12 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually dig through the article's history to find who added it - I wanted other opinions on whether the content violated policy, I wasn't calling for any action against an individual. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but surely it would be good to include something like I haven't dug through the page history to find out who it was. If anyone starts discussing an editor's behavior, please notify them of this discussion. in your post. But they have now been notified, so all is fine. Modulus12 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It was absolutely correct to remove the text. Not only was it too long, thus serving no real encyclopedic purpose, but also obscene, too obscene to justify a place on the article. Reading it now, it just felt out of place. I had seen an earlier version of the article which only featured part of the transcript and I wanted to complete it. I realize that was a mistake. We should have left it as it was or removed it entirely TheWikipedian05 (talk) 1:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that TheWikipedian05 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an odd thing to say since, unless I didn't go back far enough, TheWikipedian05 was the one that added the transcript in the first place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

RPP backlog

WP:RPP is backlogged again. There are 24 open requests to increase protection level, the oldest of which is about 18.7 hours old at time of writing. And the last notice of this kind hasn't even been archived yet! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

24? 24's for the weak. Last week I did like 50 back to back. Where's my peperoni pizza, LaundryPizza? Anyway, I guess I'll do the things. El_C 12:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I did the things! El_C 13:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Techno House 2022

• Battle of Techno House 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This newly created article is becoming a small nest of disruptive editing. Not surprising if you mix a meme with the Russian-Ukrainian war, but it'd be nice if others watched it. My initial involvement was declining a blatant hoax tag, but since then, I feel like I'm defending the article. I don't want to get into a battle (sorry) with others on whether the article is notable or whether it's well-written (it's not). I don't even like memes.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oy. Looks like a classic case of WP:RECENTISM that will be kept if it's taken to AfD before the recentism passes. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather.. surprised to see it's not at least semi'd. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of my block at User talk:Cartergishere

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 warned this user before, then a few days later he's back to edit warring (history is short and easy to follow). Once blocked, he was acting out, I properly warned him, then he says "fine", then bizarrely makes a mom comment. I went ahead and indef'ed and removed talk page access. Honestly, "your mom" comments don't phase me, and the reason for the block extension is I really believe there is a WP:CIR issue going on, but... someone might think it was INVOLVED or influenced by the personal comment. It wasn't, but I get that someone might think that, so I'm here in front my peers for a review of my admin actions. Any admin is welcome to modify or remove any sanction without further permission, as always. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Endorse block. For all I know, the person behind this account might be a fine person in real life. But here on Wikipedia, they have been violating policies and putting on a convincing imitation of being a real jerk. I am like you in that the "yo mama" type comments go right over my head, but such comments are strong evidence that the person is currently incapable of being a productive, collaborative editor. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block. The responses at their talk indicate that they should be contributing elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I agree with Johnuniq above. The talk page edits combined with the battleground behavior suggests their are not here to contribute constructively. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block and I added uw-tparevoked to their talk page. User demonstrates a lack of maturity in their edits, no need to waste any more time here. Maybe in a few years, they'll be a great editor. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block - looks pretty cut and dry. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

RfC needing closure

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 RfC has been going on for over a month, and most discussion has stalled. I posted a request at WP:CR, here, but that hasn't been acted upon yet in over a week, and in any case this might need some more experienced editor for the more contentious elements of it. It might seem daunting at first, but every individual subproposal can probably be treated independently from the rest; and there's no obligation for one person to do it all at once. It would be good if this could finally be closed and efforts be made to implement whatever outcome has been decided upon. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lot of comments in the last couple of days, which is probably why no admin has jumped on it yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an RfC where, no matter what the decision, there will be some very unhappy editors. I can understand the hesitancy to dive in to this squall. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: At least some of the proposals seem to be less contentious than the others (in terms of degree of support/opposition they have received). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I can volunteer to close over the weekend if there are no takers by then. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• User:RandomCanadian's comment above seems to be coming very close to canvassing to me, given they created the RFC, and subsequently commented (bludgeoned) another 65 times. Thanks to User:Wugapodes for closing this travesty - though I fear the elimination of so many guidelines is going to spur the creation of more articles, that the old guidelines were trying to keep a lid on - at least for English males. But I guess I'm naïve if I think that many take WP:BIAS seriously - perhaps it should be upgraded to a pillar rather than an essay. Nfitz (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  How come "seems to be coming very close to canvassing"? If the above seems non-neutral do you (after all, I suggest no outcome in particular and certainly am not posting to a partisan venue), then maybe you should correct your personal interpretation of "canvassing". And calling 65 edits (a fair few of them rather minor ones), over a large, month-long discussion (turns out that, if the number you give is correct [haven't double checked], that is about an average of 1.5 edits a day), "bludgeoning", seems like grasping at straws. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 8 March 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:Requests for adminship/Un'stopableZed

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.

---

Close needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I G1ed it. Obvious vandalism is obvious. --Jayron32 15:48, 4 March 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.

CV revdel 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.

---

Just a CV revdel needed for this version. Editor copied from HBO Max. I have already warned the editor and I'm not concerned by their behaviour. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I revision deleted that edit. Mako001, in the future you can use {{Copyvio-revdel}} for requesting copyvio revision deletions. User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel is also a helpful user script to help you with RD1 revision deletions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:23, 7 March 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.

Challenging a closure of RfC

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.

---

Talk:Francisco_Franco#RfC:_"Fascist"_categories_and_sidebar

1. Closer should have discarded irrelevant arguments: those based on personal opinion only, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Too many editors voting yes backed up by sources that say no.
2. Closer ignored the weight of the sources. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. But in this closer acknowledged that "Those in favor of keeping the categories and template first pointed to sources that are both recent and quite reliable, but not academic" and ignored the Franco's main biographers who clearly say no. (Preston, Payne, Tusell)
3. Closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, The Closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. There was no consensus at all. "The closer’s role is solely to find out what the participants have decided", in this case closer decided to take sides and vote.
4. Closer acknowledged that the Categorization should generally be uncontroversial but closer thinks that there is no controversy, but rather scholarly disagreements. Now, the Oxford dictionary says that a controversy is a public discussion and argument about something that many people strongly disagree. Merriam Webster says that a controversy is a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. So closer is wrong. Whether Franco’s regime was actually fascist is contentious and subject to an ongoing debate in the academic world.(Aleksandra Hadzelek, Spain’s ‘pact of silence’ and the Removal of Franco’s Statues)
5. Closer does not understand the topic nor the discussion that took place. Closer says "that it's clear to me here that the disagreement seems to be one of personal interpretation of the sources." and this comment is wrong. Paul Preston one of Franco's biographers says that "If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t." There is not much room for interpretation in this statement. Filipe de Meneses says "Franco was not a fascist. " what is the other possible interpretation of this source?J Pratas (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Well, this is a blast from the past. J Pratas, how is it that, after all these years, you're still skirting the line of WP:TEND RE: definitions of Iberian fascism. You go to the closer's page, where you essentially try to re-argue the RfC, trying to go over the sources and so on. That's what the RfC was for. And now here, you bring definitions of the word "controversy" from two dictionaries for some reason. What is happening? Again, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not a do-over. El_C 22:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a long discussion in the wikipedia and in the academia. Pretending that there is no controversy, but rather scholarly disagreements does not make much sense. I am not repeating the arguments, I am questioning the closing. Closer is basically taking sides on the dispute while playing with semantics to avoid the guideline. Furthermore closer claims there was a consensus where there was none. But last time didnt you say you did not know this topic enough to make a judgement? and advised to get another administrator?J Pratas (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

JPratas, as I recall, I did that because you and your opponent just kept going and going, which I felt was going nowhere, so I wanted to cut to the chase. Granted, I don't know a ton about this particular subject matter, though I have covered it in some general history courses I taught, albeit to undergrads. The point, though, is that you need to identify a policy or guideline that the closing overlooked. Instead, you seem to want to re-argue the content dispute that was the focus of this RfC. Again, that's not what a CLOSECHALLENGE is for. El_C 23:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close, as it summarizes the discussion sufficiently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. This reeks of wanting a do-over because J Pratas didn't like the outcome. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse, despite the fact this puts me on the same side El C, which I hate. After closing about two hundred edit requests on that page as get consensus, I'm glad it's done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I love you, bwo! El_C 23:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If you really loved me you'd block DF112233 for vandalism and hoaxing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Took too long, not good enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Damn, El_C can't catch a break :P ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Goodbye officer! El_C 00:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse and trout. This was closed once as "yes", reopened, and closed again by somebody else, also as "yes". Reading the RFC, I can't see any other possible way this could have been closed. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Note that this RfC was reopened the first time because JPratas' pestering of the closer had the desired effect. I commend the second closer, Isabelle Belato, for sticking to their guns in the face of this user's pressure tactics. Generalrelative (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close this discussion, much like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, went on for far too long, and now that it has died it, like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, is still dead and should still be dead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  This made me chuckle, despite reading as if "I've started this analogy, and I'm damned well going to finish it" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  That way the joke is also still dead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

• Endorse with a warning to the appellant for vexatious litigation. Do not use a trout, because a trout can be sauteed in olive oil. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 7 March 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.

Listen up, folks!

My apologies for the rant, but we're only two months into the year and arbcom is already working on the third iteration of what's essentially the same case. The common theme is that a long-time admin oversteps the bounds by using the tools to win an edit war and then refuses to talk about it. The current case isn't quite as blatant as the previous two, but it's mostly the same story.

So, admins, here's my wake-up call to you. You're not perfect. You will, from time to time, screw up. What you need to do is be willing to accept criticism, talk over the problem, and if appropriate, back out whatever you did. If you do that quickly and without being a jerk about it, everybody will be happy. At worst, you'll get a trout. But, please don't just go dark and expect the problem will go away. That's how you get dragged into an arbcom case and end up desysopped. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Arbcom could also contribute to alleviating this problem by acutally desysopping admins that do this when they go quiet (for failing WP:ADMINACCT), instead of only doing something if they edit again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that's a reasonable point, Ivan. The case just closed has desysopped the individual - they'll have to do a far more arduous version than ADMINACCT if they want to contest it, and in the first case the admin did (ultimately) engage. Had they not, a similar route would likely have been walked. I'm not sure that an appreciably different deterrence effect would be had if they acted by moving directly to full desysop in each case. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair, I have not been keeping up with the recent cases, but it used to be standard operating procedure to automatically suspend any case investigating an admin action if that admin walked away. I realize that practically that is a de facto de-mop, but it contributes to the optics that admins can avoid consequences that non-admins cannot, and the persistent perception that it is extremely difficult to remove an abusive administrator by any means.

  I guess a better point is this: why are these cases going to Arbcom anyway? The exceptions to 3RR are clearly laid out at WP:3RRNO, and "is an administrator" isn't one of them. If you see an admin edit warring, block them. We took away the ability to self-unblock several years ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  The whole "keep the tools until the case opens" is pretty newfangled anyway; as recently as May 2021 arbcom desysopped on principle. I'm not sure where the other approach comes from. SN54129 15:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself with these comments and not any other member of the committee, or the committee as a whole. We have competing examples of what the committee has done in the past in terms of desysopping while suspending or instructing admins to not use the tools while the case is suspended. I've been vocal in preferring the desysopping method if we are suspending a case, to the extent that in the most recent case I helped spur the shift from a motion that wouldn't have to a motion that did, but the arbs who prefer the other way aren't making something new up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  In the case I opened, I mentioned that when non-admins are reported here or ANI and don't respond they get blocked "until they engage" on a regular basis. It is so accepted that it has become an expectation of those reporting silent or uncommunicative editors. The obvious parallel for an uncommunicative admin is to suspend their bit until they engage. That this is not ArbCom's default is, yes, I'll say it, demoralizing from my perspective as a reporting non-admin. I get why ArbCom feels that it is only fair to avoid a "drastic" step without input from the affected editor but a more drastic step is routine for uncommunicative non-admins. If there is a prima facie case that an admin has already dodged ADMINACCT through silence for a significant period of time, ArbCom should treat them as uncommunicative and desysop them immediately until they engage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  In my time on the committee we haven't suspended until they engage. We've suspended until the end of a case. Those are different things. Just as it's very different that if a non-admin misuses rollback, it can be taken by any admin, but then after a suitable time it can also be restored by any admin (or restored immediately if the original admin shouldn't have yanked it). The coming and going of sysop is harder than the kinds of user permission available at WP:PERM. That said I completely agree with the idea you that it is demoralizing when admin don't live up to the increased responsibilities they take on with the increased ability to use tools. And I take ADMINACCT seriously which is why I believe that someone who ducks those responsibilities should lose the right to be sysop until the end of the case compared to someone who has engaged with ArbCom appropriately and that someone can lose sysop for failing to adhere to ADMINACCT for failing to respond to concerns outside of ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  If I understand what User:Eggishorn is saying is demoralizing to a non-admin, then I agree, which is why I have said that it looks to a non-admin as though the admins are circling the wagons to protect another admin. One of my concerns is that this pattern, which can be seen as patience with rogue admins, will in the long run work both against admins as a group and against the English Wikipedia. RFA has been an increasingly toxic process (although the current RFA is going very smoothly), and is likely to become more corrosive as admins are perceived as protecting their own rather than policing their own. The result will be to worsen the gradual loss of admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  At the same time, the argument is being made that Geschichte did reply to the request for an explanation. That is true, but the response was inadequate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself with these comments and not any other member of the committee, or the committee as a whole. They're going to ArbCom because the admin in questioned used his tools in that edit war. Blocking the admin would stop further tool use in that edit war but doesn't address the previous use and if no explanation is forth coming you have a situation of questionable tool use and violation of WP:ADMINACCT and so it ends up at ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've been involved in all three cases (initiating the last one), and I would say they are all unique, and I expect the outcomes to be different in all three as well. The only thing that ties them are being older admin who are reluctant to engage. Even the "sanction" for the first two were different, one was desysopped, the other wasn't. This latest case was easily avoidable by addressing the legitimate concerns about INVOLVED. All three cases revolved in part around ADDMINACCT but in all three cases, the response (or lack of) were under very different circumstances, not comparable. That said, your general point about admin being accountable, and should engage with the community when there is a legitimate outcry, is on point. It hurts ALL admin when one fails to be accountable, as it lowers the trust among the community.Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  If this is indeed becoming a trend (instead of just a coincidence), then we might need to start musing about why this is beginning to happen and what can be done about it. Do admins just get burned out after a while, and just generally stop caring about following the rules and/or stop caring about the consequences if they don't follow the rules? And if so, is there anything that can be done to prevent that, or recognize that it's already starting to happen before it results in an incident that ends up at ArbCom? Do we need term limits on admins (i.e. automatic desysop after 15-20 years)? Or an age limit on admins? Or something more subtle like, after every 5 years of adminship you must be desysopped for 3 months so that you can reconnect with what it's like to be a non-admin? I'm obviously just throwing ideas at the wall and don't expect any of them to stick, but it's an interesting thought experiment. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Adminship renewal is also an interesting idea that I support - that adminship should be subject to a yearly poll of the community. MarshallKe (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a failed proposal for a reason... GiantSnowman 22:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  You ever worked Arbitration enforcement, MarshallKe? Or even done a cursory look thru archives? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  No to the enforcement. Yes to the cursory look through archives. Your point? MarshallKe (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Arbitration Enforcement is a highly needed but often highly thankless task, and the admins who engage in it inevitably make enemies due to the very nature of conflict resolution in the form of sanctions. You don't really want to subject Arbitration enforcement admins to a straw poll. WaltCip-(talk) 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Might the real "trend" just be that people now realize that ArbCom is actually going to do something, so they now bother filing requests in the first place? Was WP:ADMINACCT really followed more rigorously in the past? Or did people just say "oh well, what can you do"? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  THAT is a very good point. Arb, as of late, is more willing to get involved, and get involved early instead of kicking the can down the road and saying "the community can handle it". That alone helps, as it creates an incentive for admin to be accountable, for they know there will be consequences if they aren't. It isn't all about desysop, it's about being dragged into the stocks in public, something no one wants. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Isn't the statistics in the last five years such that any admin who has a case opened against them is guaranteed to be desysopped? Unless I am missing something, we only had one exception.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Were there any instances where removing the admin bit was a mistake? Admin aren't taken to Arb very often. Just because we have had three in rapid succession doesn't make that a trend. Statistics are always lumpy when you look at them in short time frames, and tend to even out over longer time frames. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops has the stats you're probably looking for/thinking of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: going back to the very first point in this section: I totally understand why an admin would just walk away. Wikipedia is voluntary. Being an admin is voluntary. So these are people who've volunteered to put up with complete and utter crap, mediate disputes that are as boring as hell, deal with pointless vandals, mess around in the internet-dregs, and all for nothing but a slight feel-good factor? I can't for the life of me see why anyone would be daft enough to be an admin on Wikipedia. And then if you get criticised for how you do it - well, I'd just walk away too.
  

Of course anyone who asks to be placed in a position where they have more rights than others, has to behave. But if they lose the will to keep going when someone decides to start throwing muck at them - even muck that's deserved - I'm inclined to be grateful for what they did before they left, and just accept their right to walk away in silence. It can't be much fun. Elemimele (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's sometimes how it feels. Any editor can have their edits scrutinized and it's usually an unpleasant experience, even when you are found not to have done anything wrong. After being an admin for 6 1/2 years, last month a decision I made, like I make every day, was taken to Deletion Review for the first time and it's a humbling experience (and it's now happened twice!). I can imagine for admins who take on more controversial AFD and RFC closures it can be tiresome to take on difficult tasks, ones where there will inevitably be unhappy people, and have your judgment second guessed. But accountability is part of the job.

But back to the original post that started this all, I've thought about recent desysoped admins (say, over the past 2 years) and it seems like it's not the tool abuse that gets the admin in trouble but the response to being criticized about it that often involves defensiveness and dismissiveness towards the other editor and even the community. And, to be honest, it's hard to be criticized in an open platform like Wikipedia. But you have to be able to be reflective, look at your actions impartially and admit if you made a mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Elemimele to a certain extent in the first few sentences of their comments. Then I diverge. Of course, any volunteer has the right to stop volunteering but all experienced editors know that "retirements" are often temporary. "Retired" editors frequently return to the disruptive behavior that led to their departure. The proper way for an administrator to retire is to request that their access to the administrator toolset be removed. But when the editor writes all for nothing but a slight feel-good factor?, I am forced to beg to differ. I am here on this project to help build and maintain a free encyclopedia for English speakers everywhere, and as a participant in a broader movement to provide free encyclopedias for the speakers of every significant language on this planet. I truly believe that contributing constructively to such a grand venture is more important than a feel-good factor. I am also soon to observe my 70th birthday and am acutely aware that people of my age sometimes suddenly or at other times slowly develop conditions that adversely affect their judgment. I take administrator accountability very seriously. I believe that administrators who go silent and go dark in the midst of significant discussion of improper tool use should have their tools removed, at least until they fully respond to the allegations. If I ever "go silent" without explanation when my actions are under reasonable scrutiny, I would expect to be suspended. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin response: I can't help but think of the great line in Sly & Robbie's version of Fire, which goes something like this: "Water boy with the bucket / If you didn't want the job / you shouldn't oughta took it." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of RFC closure

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

---

I'm asking for a closure review of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS, as the user making the closure was clearly WP:INVOLVED. I don't believe there is a separate niticeboard for this (like WP:DRV for deletion reviews), so listing here, as it likely needs admin attention. WP:RFCEND says that an RFC may be closed by any uninvolved editor, but this RFC was closed by RandomCanadian, who has made 66 edits to that discussion, and so is clearly involved, and they have closed it matching their own point of view on the subject. I deem this unacceptable (and would have raised sooner, but only just noticed who the closer was). Would it be possible for this closure to be re-reviewed and re-closed by any uninvolved admin, in accordance with the proper RFC process? This is a challenge of the process of closing, not of the outcome, so if an uninvolved admin agrees with the closure and confirms it themselves, then that's acceptable to me. But RandomCanadian being allowed to close this RFC is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, the closer should have the opportunity to explain their closure before it is taken here for review. It doesn't look like RandomCanadian was given that opportunity. ––FormalDude talk 12:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

RandomCanadian was not the closer; it was closed by Wugapodes (I think this confusion arises because the close is not clearly highlighted in the usual manner of having a coloured box). Number 57 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Whoops! May want to close this thread then, @Joseph2302. ––FormalDude talk 12:39, 9 March 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.

Apologies, my mistake. Consider all my complaints withdrawn. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 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 submitted an appeal for a topic ban at WP:AE, which has been declined. The reasons behind my topic ban are vague, and I was hoping to clarify and hopefully explain myself further during my appeal, but we never got there. May I discuss this appeal here? Courtesy pinging user:Vanamonde93 who topic-banned me. Ypatch (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's add User:The Blade of the Northern Lights who closed the appeal, and pinging @RegentsPark, El C, and Dennis Brown: Doug Weller talk 11:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• (involved admin) Vanamonde93 issued the sanction 1.5 days before the appeal. In the appeal, I saw exactly zero acceptance of any wrong doing. As pure as the driven snow. Short of any abuse by the admin giving the sanction, appeals like this are typically not going anywhere. No admission of anything, no path forward, appeal right after it is given. I didn't see any abuse in the giving of the sanction, and a couple of diffs WERE provided by RegentsPark in the denial. El C also linked to some logs, so information has been provided. This seems a wasted second bite at the apple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• From a brief look I'm inclined to agree with RegentsPark's comment at the AE appeal. The two threads linked [44] [45] show Ypatch raising largely procedural objections to content they disagree with, as opposed to other people who are mainly engaging on the content itself. The second thread in particular includes a section where Ypatch stopped responding to a discussion about one of their edits for almost a month, and when someone else understandably just reverted the edit Ypatch reappeared to accuse that person of edit warring and breaching a restriction. Restrictions such as "consensus required" are tools to get people to discuss the content, they aren't weapons to be used to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Hut 8.5 13:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand what this is. A user subject to WP:ACDS may appeal their sanction either to: the community at WP:AN, a quorum of uninvolved admins at WP:AE, or to the Committee itself at WP:ARCA. Key word: either. You don't get to use whatever the remaining 2 venues are for further appeals. What's next after this appeal of the appeal is declined? Appealing the declined appeal of the appeal at ARCA? (Although, I suppose, in theory, anything could be appealed to ArbCom, whether they accept is another matter. But my point stands. Either, not over and over.) El_C 14:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § appeals.notes point two, sanctioned editors are implicitly encouraged to appeal via AN and AE before going to ARCA. sanctions.appeals refers to a three-stage process, after all. I agree that it's either AE or AN, then ARCA, though. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Possible NOTHERE, COI, PROMO for Postriduan and Sereyu1 and IP

• Postriduan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sereyu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.218.44.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of these accounts are possibly not here to make an encyclopedia, and instead seem fixated on matters of pushing public relations for HTC products they may be involved in. Postriduan especially is a single-purpose account for editing HTC Vive-related pages. Sereyu1 has shown an interest in editing heavily PR-laden pages related to Hong Kong businesses and people (and also uploaded a logo of an HTC product as an "own work" to Wikimedia Commons since nominated by yours truly for speedy deletion). The editing times and similar interests seem to show that they are the same user, or are otherwise acting on behalf of the same party. The IP address likewise shows being a possible alt or puppet because of these overlapping interests at the same time and place. Mewnst (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The proper venue for this is WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know for certain if these users are all the same, and I know that it doesn't matter if they quack like a sock, but I reported the issue here because their edits are more problematic than their possible petty puppeting. Postriduan is also unrepentant about their promotional nonsense. Mewnst (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Article maintenance templates and drafts

Are article maintenance templates supposed to be used in drafts? I see them all the time, but it makes no sense to me, and I'm hesitant to remove them. What about short descriptions? Stub templates?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The general consensus, at least among AFC reviewers, is that they aren't really necessary in the Draft space, and there is a bot to remove a handful of these templates, but generally they're just removed by AFC reviewers. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

These often originate from draftifying articles. That is, they get tagged in mainspace, then the article gets moved to draftspace. One exception is the COI or UPE templates, which I sometimes see draft reviewers place intentionally. I usually leave all these tags, especially short description and stub which are useful if the draft is moved back to mainspace. But to each their own. I believe almost all of these templates have code that detects draftspace and keeps drafts out of their hidden maintenance categories. So for example, using the template {{Lizard-stub}} in draftspace would not put the draft in Category:Lizard stubs –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Check my work

I just partial blocked Zanuda petro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from Telegram (software) for 31 hours. Zanudo and ASpacemanFalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been edit warring over this content, with this edit summary by Zanuda--"Attempt to represent Telegram in their interests (unacceptable). The source shows the opposite. (Only the most recent example. Zanuda added this content about eighteen times, but not always with aspersions.). Please note this edit is sourced to Snoopproject and on Zanuda's user page, he wrote "Тестовая страница для проверки Snoop" ("Snoop test page"). So I sense a COIness in his edits. Please see Zanuda'a talk for my warnings/advice about COI and aspersions and WP:BRD. The deciding factors for me to block him and not ASpacemanFalls was the COI link on top of the aspersions and the refusal to discuss after being advised to do so. Please see my talk for more information. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Shorter than I would have given, and yes, there does seem to be a possible COI issue clouding his judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Attacking other editors

Xplore Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attacked me on my talk page in bad language. Please block the user. When using Google translate, I came to know that it is very bad language. He is also vandalizing several pages. Girth Summit Deepfriedokra Black Kite Ponyo

(117.230.2.140 (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC))

Haven't had my coffee, but looks like an edit war over Pokemon? Eyes not open yet. Might not be back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Translate gives pretty meaningless waffle for much of what they wrote, and draws a blank for some of it. What does it mean? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Google translate gave me an odd translation (You are about to start the journey on the path to your success. etc), but couldn't translate one sentence of it. (Malayalam) Seemed like a copy paste, not "bad language". The IP has a dynamic address, so harder to follow (one more reason to get a registered account). As for reverting the IP on the Pokemon page, that edit seems perfectly legitimate, removing one small bit of unsourced "fact". Right or wrong, there seems to be good faith in the edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It is very bad language in Malayalam. They are also vandalizing pages related to actors and films and changing the reviews, box office etc. Girth Summit Dennis Brown

(117.230.2.140 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC))

I don't speak Malayalam. Can you be specific about particular phrases which concern you? You will also need to provide diffs of what you assert is vandalism, if you want us to investigate it. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I do know that he is spamming the hell out of some IP talk pages. I'm tempted to block just for that, regardless of what it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• And it does just appear to be random spam. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• 🤦‍♂️. I was looking too hard for bad language. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Red Paintings

I don't know if other noticeboards have been aware of this yet, but The Red Paintings keeps getting nominated by people speaking on behalf of the band, making spurious claims pushing for the article's deletion. These claims are mainly "they haven't recorded since 2013", "their music isn't on any digital platforms", and "there are minor inaccuracies in the article". So far, it's been sent to AFD twice by sockpuppet accounts, and both times I've closed the AFD discussion per WP:SNOW. User:Alan191919, User:Theredpaintings, and User:85.56.220.216 all seem to be involved in whitewashing the article; the former has been outed as a paid editor. Would an IP range block and/or indefinite semi-protection help to stop any of this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Long-term semi-protection might assist, but otherwise I think it's a case for WP:RBI. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• We've no idea who these nominating disruptors really are. I went ahead and semi'd to stop the disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've given educational material to Alan191919. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Can a revision be hidden

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 IP address registered to the University of Pennsylvania made an offensive edit on the page (Redacted) about the transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, who is a Penn student. ((Redacted) is her deadname) Can this revision be hidden? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivet Madatyan (talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 13:13, 21 March 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.

Arrest of a Wikipedian in Belarus

Today reportedly a Wikipedian was arrested in Belarus for editing Russian Wikipedia. (He is a former arb there but not an admin). It was also reported that there is a channel on Telegram which is doxxing editors of the Russian Wikipedia who are introducing edits not in line with the government policy (specifically for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the official standpoint of Russia is that this is not a war or invasion, but a special operation which protects Russia from NATO, and that Russia does not bomb Ukrainian cities but instead targets military installations with high-precision weapons, the number of casualties is zero). I am pretty sure they will start doxxing us soon. Not sure what we can do about it, and not sure this is the best place to post, but the community probably wants to be aware of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This makes us realise that most arguments on Wikipedia are very trivial when compared to matters such as this. I live in a liberal democracy that is a member of NATO, so can speak my mind reasonably freely compared to some others, so would not presume to give advice to any editors in Russia or Belarus, or Ukraine for that matter, except to say that anyone should know the possible consequences before writing anything. If you want to risk your life and/or liberty than you should go into it with open eyes. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything non-Russian-speaking enwiki editors can do to help the situation at ruwiki? Levivich 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not myself a Russian Wikipedia editor, but I would think no, probably not at this point. Thanks for asking.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Coincidentally(?), the San Francisco Examiner did a piece yesterday on Russian Wikipedians and the current challenges, interesting read.[46] Schazjmd (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This needs verification as otherwise it just creates fear. Secretlondon (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

https://w.wiki/4wX6 is the thread on the Russian Wikipedia if that helps..? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 18:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Via Google translate [47] Still note there's a war on and information is part of that. Secretlondon (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to note that the OP has often been accused (although I have not seen an instance where the accusation is valid) of being a pro-Putin stooge. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What the hell? Phil Bridger why are you spreading rumours? Here[48] he says "Russian reporting is clearly a lie". This is beneath you. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I wrote properly. I am not spreading rumours and have said nothing that is beneath me. Many false accusations have been made, as I'm sure Ymblanter himself would confirm. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I know that. I don't know why you even mentioned them. I guess you meant well, but if you felt you had to mention them you should have said "You may wish to note that the OP has often been falsely accused..." - which is not the same as "Although I have not seen an instance where the accusation is valid". Maybe it's just me, but I see a difference in my phrasing and yours. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no difference. I mentioned it because the comment I was replying to implied that the incident of a Wikipedia editor being arrested might be pro-Ukrainian/Western propaganda, and I wanted the writer to know that Ymblanter's editing is neutral, and he doesn't push propaganda from either side. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I still see a big difference but I agree that you weren't trying to spread rumours but to dispell false accusations. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I read it exactly the way Doug did and if I hadn't been on mobile I'd have said something. Saying "I think this thing is false" does strike me as meaningfully different than "I haven't seen evidence that this is true" and I think what Phil wrote here was more this second version that the first. Glad it got cleared up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I an sure everybody here acted in good faith. Concerning the verification, the arrest has been reported in reliable sources (I have only seen Russian language media, but I did not search broadly), and, for example, someone already added this material to our article on the Russian Wikipedia. I do not see any reasons for doubts here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• His talk page is likely to have more info [49] as time goes on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm sure this goes without saying, but if there is any attempted doxxing on-wiki, please email oversight to get it taken care of. If something needs to be removed in the meantime, use a neutral edit summary (not "removal of doxxing" or the like) to make it less obvious. We'd rather decline something borderline than miss something important.Primefac (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope everyone has seen Maggie Dennis's post to Wikimedia-l on what is clearly this topic. 2600:387:F:4833:0:0:0:4 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I join the discussion? Current situation in regard to the freedom of speech and the freedom of convey information in Russia is terrible.

The assisting the foreign or international organization in the activity directed against the security of Russian Federation is considered a treason (the article 275 of Russian Criminal Code). Editing Wikipedia's articles can be considered an assistance for the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. If the result of editing is dissemination of information unfavorable to Russia authorities, it could be considered "an activity directed against the security of Russia". And it doesn't matter whether this information has status "classified" or not. Treason is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 12 to 20 years.

The dissemination of fake information about the use of Russian Armed Forces is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 to 15 years (the article 207.3 of Russian Criminal Code). Any information from non-official government sources is considered fake.

The discrediting of Russian Armed Forces and its operations, including the calls for prevention of the use of Russian Armed Forces for interests of Russian Federation is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years (the article 280.3 of Russian Criminal Code).

At the moment, an amendment of the Russian Criminal Code to add into the articles 207.3 and 280.3 others "siloviki" being considered. In the event of the amendment being passed, "dissemination of fake information" and "discrediting ... including the calls for prevention of the use" will apply to Russian Federal Security Service, Russian National Guard, Russian Police, Russian Investigative Committee, Russian prosecutor's office, etc, and to operations of these agencies.

In fact, the democratic freedoms and the human rights got thrown overboard in Russia. And it's not temporary situation. Aforementioned laws are regular laws, not exraordinary, and it means these provisions will act always. Putin's Russia is de facto totalitarian state from now.

So, again, like I said, current Russian reality is all-too-grim and painful. The revival of Stalinism is finally realized. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia is likely to trend in the direction of being Russian propaganda. Obviously a lot of its editors are from Russia. And from there, only pro-Kremlin editing is acceptable. Ugh. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This can be avoided. There are many Russian-speaking people in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Many of them fled Russia due to political atmosphere created by Putin. They can get special permissions and see to it that Russian Wikipedia will not become another tool of Putin's propaganda. We need to think about ways to make it. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would note that in a recent discussion there on whether they should have a banner backing Ukraine, 60% supported it - it was only the fact that they require 2/3 for such things that it wasn't implemented. Clearly, the Russian editor group is hardly the most putin-focused group Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

protect page about Russian fascism (ideology)

Please protect from editing by user:Veverve this page Russian fascism (ideology). I can also avoid editing the page to stop war editing. However, the user nominated the page for deletion and now they shorten it and vandal it (my own opinion) to make it look stupid and not notable. --Tsans2 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I dot think user:Veverve edits are biased, and considering such a fragile and delicate topic as Russian fascism in the context of Russian invasion of Ukraine the decision should be quick. Tsans2 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tsans2:

• It is written: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." You have not warned me in any way, yet you have requested I get article-banned, accuse me of vandalism, disruptive editing and vandal [sic]. I have only been made aware of this ANM since I had a look at your edit history right now as I suspect you of being a POV-pusher.
• Other users have thanked me for my removals. I have justified each of my removals of this article in the edit summaries. Nothing forbids me from editing an article while it is under AfD, see also WP:HEYMANN. I have also opened a discussion at Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Editing problems to explain how some of your recent edits are problematic.
• the user nominated the page for deletion I did not, it is Endwise who did
• You might want to create an ANI and not an ANM for complaints such as those, especially since you want the decision [to be] quick.

Veverve (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Declined - Although if the edit warring worsens, I will be happy to dish out blocks. It isn't kosher to rush and revert to your preferred version, then quickly come ask for protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown I wasn't rushing here after reverting. but thanks again and please take a closer look at the topic and that guy. Tsans2 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  First, you were reverting both before an after. Second, Veverve didn't nominate the article for deletion, another editor did, and whether or not it gets deleted, the nomination appears to be in good faith. Finally, you only have 62 edits and you are already at WP:AN pointing fingers (incorrectly) at well established editors. If any editor needs to be monitored, it would be you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• If you are concerned about NPOV issues, you might raise the issue at WP:NPOVN to attract more attention to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  User:Tsans2 - Yelling 'vandalism' is not useful, and can be a personal attack. You lost half of my attention as soon as you said "vandal", because, from your description, the dispute is not vandalism. Do not yell vandalism to "win" an edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon I don't want to win. I want to attract someone else. I'm biased too as I created the article :p Tsans2 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  User:Tsans2 - Do not yell vandalism in order to "attract someone else", although that evokes an image of trying to flirt in a bar while insulting your romantic rival. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  but I do think it's vandalism. another experienced Wikipaedian has already warned that person. Tsans2 (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  User:Tsans2 - Read What Is Not Vandalism. Biased edits that are non-neutral are not vandalism. Yelling vandalism when there is a content dispute or a neutrality dispute is still a personal attack. And no one has warned the other editor about vandalism, only about discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  thanks Tsans2 (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

AfDs needing immediate closure

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) needs an immediate closure, as it was last relisted on 10 February. Apparently no administrator ever goes to WP:CR since nobody has yet responded to my closure request there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek Aggoun had also been going since 10 February without a relist, until yesterday when it was inexplicably supervote-relisted by Gidonb. That one should also be closed immediately, as the discussion has already dragged on for enough time. Avilich (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Avilich! Like others here, I use the automatic function to relist. It did not work for this particular AFD. This is probably why the AfD was relisted only once. Someone did complaint about that. I relisted manually, given the lively and ongoing conversation. Someone after me said that this could or should close as delete and stated as a reason that more people wanted to delete. I believe this is going in the delete direction and not only for the reason given. Initially it were mostly keeps, later mostly deletes. This too points at delete. I think that, absolutely, if this continues to be the case, the article should be deleted. On the other hand, relisting only once, with such a lively discussion is a problem. Give it another week and then, by all likelihood, this should be deleted. In discussions, we need to be fair and give a chance to all sides. I would appreciate if someone can check what went wrong with the AFD so this could not be automatically relisted! gidonb (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi gidonb. I think that there was already a legitimate consensus at that point, which, coupled with the procedural oddity and the long lifespan of that discussion, would make it more appropriate for an administrator to perform the close, or at least for a rationale to be provided for the relist. You will have seen that several people got upset and frustrated that this was extended yet again without any statement to justify the action. Avilich (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you raised it yourself, I do not think this frustration was justified in any way. We need to WP:AGF and give people a chance to have their say, especially if the discussion is lively, ongoing, and was relisted only once. Relisting was the correct way forward. Patience and respect for colleagues is important in a community project. I do think that this is heading in the direction of deletion. gidonb (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The last part of my comment referred to the views displayed by other users in the discussion, not by me personally as I didn't comment on that there. Though again, I did find the lack of an accompanying summary a more than a bit baffling given the unusual circumstances. Avilich (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Most relists are without a comment although these can been helpful. Anyway, the discussion is closed now. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Partially done only. Avilich (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Rightfully so. gidonb (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Done been did x 2. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Avilich (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a fairly regular closer of the most-overdue AFDs but due to the current ongoing unpleasantness around sports-biographies, I am no longer closing these AFDs until the GNG vs NSPORTS wars are settled. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Stifle, I totally understand your decision and hope that the greater WP community takes note that there is currently too much pressure around the sports AfDs and notability guidelines. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've no issue with the close, User:Stifle, but why had it fallen off the list of open AFDs at WP:AFD? Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz If you look at the contribs of the user who relisted it on February 10 ([50]) it looks like they used XfDCloser to relist seven AfDs, but only two (the first and last) were properly transcluded to the February 10 list. These were two of the five that weren't, and I'm just checking the others now. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not familiar with these tools. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Of the other three, one had been closed, I've just closed another, and the third has been relisted on today AfD log, so we're all good there. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This might explain the problem relisting that I raised above. gidonb (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The relister tool is great but if you try to relist a lot of AFDs in quick succession with it, it can produce undefined behavior. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, you shouldn't be relisting a lot of AFD's in quick succession. Sometimes, an AFD with only two votes needs relisting, sometimes it does not. Some discretion has to go into the decision. Otherwise, we could just get a bot to do relists based on math, which is not what we want. We want judgement, which takes more than a few seconds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting review of closure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jussie_Smollett#Close_challenge

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jussie_Smollett&diff=1077213517&oldid=1077213048

FormalDude implemented a non-admin closure of a discussion which was not formally opened, which was still on-going, and which was only two days old. Their rationale is a complete misreading of WP:MUG and they have shut down all objections to their closure, insisting we take it elsewhere, hence this. Le Marteau (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm going to revert the close by FormalDude, and give him a warning. Way too many things wrong with it. For starters, in an informal discussion, if someone closes a discussion and there is an outcry from the general editor pool, you reopen it. The discussion was only two days old. Next, FormalDude started hatting discussions, seemingly to push away those that disagreed with him. Next, FormalDude reverted someone who had removed the close [51], which was done in a rude fashion. Plus the closing itself was just a giant super-vote. FormalDude, this was a textbook case of doing everything in the worst possible way imaginable. Trying to close it? Ok, fine, but do a proper job of it (ie: no supervote), and NEVER revert a reopening. Hell, I'm an admin and I wouldn't do that. I would take it to the boards for review. Same for hatting the discussion over the close. It just looks like you playing god and dictating it will be closed, dictating it shall not be discussed. Maybe you shouldn't be closing discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  My mistake for reverting and hatting. Although that hatting was done because Le Marteau was no longer criticizing the closure and was instead just making personal attacks against me.

  I don't see how this was a supervote. What possible other outcome is there that is based in Wikipedia policy, Dennis Brown? ––FormalDude talk 15:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want to categorize my justified questioning of your competence as an editor, as a "personal attack" that's fine. I'd do it again. Le Marteau (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And furthermore, in between questioning your competence and behavior, I ABSOLUTELY was continuing to criticize the closure, when I pointed out your complete misreading of WP:MUGSHOT. Le Marteau (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously one of us, Le Marteau or me, is interpreting WP:MUG incorrectly. It would help if someone could decide who that was. ––FormalDude talk 15:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes these discussion get people to searching for replacements, and sometimes find them. Sometimes they need time to hammer out policy considerations. Sometimes it just take a little time for a consensus to form, maybe to not include or bother at all. This is why you let them play out. Your close The mugshot cannot be included without a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the relevancy of the image to the specific incident, per WP:MUGSHOT. This discussion cannot override Wikipedia policy by claiming the onus is on removal when in fact the exact opposite is true. No prejeduce against starting a new thread, if it provides a RS for the mugshot., you are making determinations that you don't get to do in a close. On the contrary, your close was "I don't want you discussing this". It's very presumptuous. By you deciding ahead of time that WP:MUG didn't allow inclusion, and instead of commenting, you close the discussion, that is a TEXTBOOK example of a supervote. You are trying to lay down the law, when you have zero authority to do so, then revert to maintain "order". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing you say that my interpretation of WP:MUG was incorrect. ––FormalDude talk 15:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean it was. As an admin, my role in this isn't to get involved with the merits of the discussion, only with procedure and behavior, which was a problem. Never assume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what help it is to not get involved in the merits of the discussion during a closure review. Anyone has the authority to make sure Wikipedia policy is being followed. By avoiding that question, you're making it seem like the only issue here is optics. ––FormalDude talk 16:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think what he's getting at is that no one person is imbued with the power to shut down a discussion on Wikipedia based on their personal interpretation of WP:PAG, which is what it looks like you did. Others clearly disagree with the closure, and your interpretation of it as a clear "never going to happen" scenario. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty commonplace for editors to shut down misguided discussions that are not following WP:PAG. The only ones who disagreed with the closure were the ones that were misinterpreting WP:PAG. I'm asking for clarification on whether it was or was not a "never going to happen" scenario, or at least a misguided discussion that could have been closed for being misguided per WP:Closing_discussions#cite_note-1. ––FormalDude talk 17:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, my reading of Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited. is that [52] [53] [54] [55] and likely hundreds more RS have linked the photograph to the specific incident that the subject was found guilty of. It doesn't seem like WP:MUG would apply, so I guess it's not a "never going to happen" scenario, as multiple good faith editors disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you read my closure, a new thread providing RS was precisely what I called for. So it sounds like you're agreeing with me that that was the only way it was going to happen. ––FormalDude talk 17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Or you could have replied in the existing thread "any use of the mugshot in the article will need high quality RS linking the mugshot to the crime." That's even easier than closing the discussion. I imagine there wasn't much talk about which RS they'd use because there are literally tens of thousands of them to choose from, and if the picture would be included or not was the real sticking point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• It isn't your place to decide, nor edit war over. Even admin rarely just shut down a discussion, and when we do, we often find ourselves here, explaining why. You simply do not have the authority you think you do. The fact that you don't understand this makes we want to ask the community for a topic ban against you closing discussions. Your lack of insight is disturbing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm surprised Dennis Brown would suggest a topic ban for a closure that they're not even willing to weigh in on the merits of.

  I do understand that I should not have restored my closure, and I won't make that mistake again in the future. I also understand the explanation as to why it didn't need to be shut down, even if it was a discussion that didn't follow PAG. With that said, I support the decision to overturn. Sorry for any disruption. ––FormalDude talk 17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  • • To answer your question: As admin, I came in to restore the discussion only. They do not need, nor want, my opinion on the merits in an aborted discussion. My opinion is not worth any more than anyone else's in regard to the merits, so had I an opinion, I still wouldn't burden them with it. They are smart, they will figure it out. Part of doing administrative tasks is knowing when to STFU and not give unsolicited opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

      I didn't ask a question. ––FormalDude talk 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that would've needed intervention is edit warring to include a [non-free] mugshot in the article without positive consensus to do so. Discussion of the mugshot didn't need to be shut down, however well intentioned. Whether we call the closure a "supervote" or "closing according to the strength of arguments rather than headcount" (the distinction between them typically comes down to how the closing statement is worded and how many uninvolved people agree/disagree afterwards) doesn't matter as much IMO because it didn't need closing. If there's a dispute over the interpretation of WP:MUGSHOT, perhaps open a thread on that page. The file's been deleted, so perhaps this can wind down. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of comments during an RfC

NorthBySouthBaranof removed my comments at an RfC at Talk:Jussie Smollett here[56] and here[57]. He claims responses to comments in an RfC is not the appropriate venue because it' not supposed to be a discussion. I've dealt with RfC's before and I've always seen responses to peoples !votes; I've responded to people !votes before and people have respond to mine. I always believed RfC's were just discussions that are supposed to garner a bit more look from the community; there not special beyond that. Removing constructive comments is not ok and counters the consensus making process. His remedy is to have a subsection for discussion, but I don't see this as beneficial as the normal response method, and is only more confusing for editors. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove the comments, I refactored them into a separate Discussion section after IARGAC declined my invitation to do so. Threaded discussion in the middle of RFC opinions are often deprecated because it creates a repetitive, muddled mess of argumentation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You did originally remove them, see the diffs above. You are now trying to lessen the impact by relocating them. My comments were brainstorms or general ideas about the RfC, which generally is what the "discussion" sections in an RfC are fore, my comments were direct responses to comments by another editor. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You expressed your comment and opinion with your !vote; why do you think you're entitled to demand separate explanations from each and every single !voter whose opinion differs from yours? Separating opinions and discussion is far cleaner, less repetitive, and easier to comprehend. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I responded to one comment, that's it. I wouldn't say it's easier to comprehend because it's hard to see in the discussion section what the editors are responding too. Whether or not it looks "cleaner" or prettier is not a concern I have. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason for the comment to have been removed or moved. Looking at WP:RSN, it's clear that replies in the survey are standard practice. Not wanting it to be standard practice is not a reason to refactor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As ScottishFinnishRadish has said, it's common practice to have threaded discussions in the survey section of an RfC. Although this might make it harder to see the !votes, it's done in almost every RfC where points are countered or corrected by participants. If Iamreallygoodatcheckers clearly stated they did not want their comments moved, you should've have done so. As an aside, when you do move comments, you should try to make it clear to whom they were originally directed. (edit)I don't think this should've been brought to AN, though, as there appears to be no urgency here, just a small mistake. Isabelle ^🔔 00:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This gatekeeping, pointed out in this section and the one directly above, is ridiculous. There is nothing inappropriate about any of the discussion that is ongoing, which is indeed a robust collaboration that will undoubtedly improve the article. I’m sorry that Smollett staged an absurd hate crime hoax, but it’s Wikipedia’s role to document it correctly. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Attempts to hack into admin accounts

I have received a notification that there have been multiple failed attempts to log into my account from a new device. The last time that happened it also happened to numerous other administrators' accounts. I have the following suggestions:

1. Any administrators, please make sure you have a secure password, not something easy to hack, such as an English word, or a password only five characters long, etc etc.
2. If anyone else has recently had the same experience then I suggest they post here to say so, so that we can tell whether it is another mass attack or not. JBW (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't 2FA mandatory for admins? If not, it should be. GiantSnowman 15:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No, 2FA isn't mandatory. Hog Farm _Talk 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman strong, unique, passwords are mandatory for admins. 2FA is only mandatory for interface admins. Unfortunately the 2FA system lacks sufficient support to make it mandatory for larger groups of users so far. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sage advice. I'd point out for JBW's benefit, that this is SOP for anyone who has gone near a sock of User:Projects, such as 5.229.128.166. It's intended as an annoyance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, zzuuzz. If that's all it is then it's not too bad. In the context I can tell what you mean, but I have no idea what "SOP" stands for. Just out of interest, would you like to enlighten me? JBW (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure; routine, normal. I see our article also says, "practices that are unconstructive, yet the norm". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I use 2FA on my account, and recommend it for those that have the means to enable it. See WP:2FA. --Jayron32 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

He tries again and again and again and again (yes, this person, also known as "Projects") -- one day this week he tried just under 200 times to guess my password. I know it's him. He'd probably stop if he realized I'm more amused than annoyed. Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing on my Wikimedia account, presumably since I have 2FA, but someone tried to reset the password to my VRTS account (which has access to restricted CU queues) this morning. Could be a coincidence, but... – Joe (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing, but I also have 2FA, enabled when I decided to run RfA. I think any admin who doesn't is nuts possibly not giving enough consideration to the possibilities. :D Yes, it's a minor extra step when you need to login again. Yes, the whole scratch codes thing sounds scary. But I would feel so frickin' idiotic if I got hacked because I crossed my fingers instead of acknowledging that as an admin I needed to be more careful. For those who haven't enabled because it feels daunting: the good folks at Help talk:Two-factor authentication won't make fun of you even when you ask the stupidest question they've ever heard. Believe me. valereee (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Scrath codes are not really scary. I recently had to reset the 2FA because I switched to a new device; I just disabled 2FA and then re-enabled it; this generates the new set of codes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. If you can work a smartphone, you can figure out 2FA. The instructions are wordy and full of scary-looking warnings but it's actually pretty simple. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been said a million times, but there's no harm in saying it again. Don't use the same password as you use on any other site. You might be really proud of yourself for remembering "l 0r@NLngf^#G2amVm~;", but if you also used that on another site that does something idiotic like storing passwords as plain text (and how would you know?), it might as well be "12345". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Password managers are pretty great. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Last I heard, people whose technical opinions I respect were of the opinion that MediaWiki's 2FA was not fit for purpose. Has something significantly changed in how it's implemented, compared to what it used to be? This isn't a bank; if you have a long password unique to WP, I can't imagine a realistic scenario where 2FA is actually important. The one use I can think of for 2FA on Wikipedia is it helps me identify people who take this place too seriously; they're the ones who tend to mock/patronize the people who choose not to use it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because people vastly overestimate their ability to choose high-entropy passwords. You tell them to choose a 10-character passsword, and they use "opensesame". Tell them to include a mix of uppercase, lowercase, and numbers, and they use "OpenSesame1". Tell them to include punctuation too, then it's "OpenSesame1!". Eventually you just give up and use a system that doesn't give them any options. Other than that, it protects against casual shoulder-surfers, and maybe provides some minimal protection against malware and eavesdropping.  2FA is not magic pixie dust. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I understand the benefits of well-implemented 2FA in general. What I don't understand is why I should bother with (what I understand to be) poorly-implemented 2FA on a random website like Wikipedia. If someone does manage to break into my admin account, their ability to cause anything beyond fleeting problems for anyone besides myself is, to a first approximation, zero. 2FA on a bank account? Yes. 2FA on a WP account? Meh. Demanding admins use 2FA on their WP account? Obnoxious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. 2FA should not be mandatory for admins. However, as much as I'd like to believe that checkusers, oversighters, and intadmins are all using strong, unique passwords, that's probably not the case. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Just changed my password to "12345679", just to be safe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have been receiving such notifications regularly for the last two years. Most of these notifications come from projects where I don't know the language. However, I have 2FA on my account. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• If 2FA becomes compulsory for admins, you'll definitely lose my services, which won't break Wikipedia — but still, I may not be the only one. (I can't work a smartphone, HJ Mitchell. What do you think of that?) Not sure which would come first — me accidentally locking myself out, or me being too pissed off to stick around. Do not be concerned for my security, though; I have a very secure password that's not even a little like "opensesame". Admittedly Bishzilla uses "Bishonen" as her password, and thinks she's being very clever. But then she's not currently an admin, fortunately. Bishonen | tålk 22:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: Just out of interest Bish, would you feel the same way about WebAuthn? Instead of relying on a code generated by your smartphone, you'd (probably) use a hardware key (this YouTube video might make a bit more sense). At the moment, the WMF's implementation of WebAuthn apparently isn't great, so I can't recommend it, but on principle would that be more palatable? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm waiting for 3FA to come out. If I have this crooked, I should buy a smartphone (don't own one) and jeopardize my privacy every time I use it so I can protect my password on Wikipedia. Got it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's nothing stopping you from using whatever device you're using right now to generate the token. Arguably, that's no longer exactly "two factor" and won't protect at all against malware, but hey, no one will ever know. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 3FA, even 4FA are actual things - but don't expect WMF integrations to them any time soon! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• If WMF makes more than a lazy hand wave in the general direction of providing support for their 2FA system, I will respond in kind. I guess I'm just a nutter, eh Valereee? Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled security theater programming!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, there are a variety of apps you can run on your desktop that implement 2FA (actually, time-based one-time passwords), so you don't need a smartphone. I can't recommend specific ones, though. In case anyone's unsure if it is safe to reuse your password on another site, HaveIBeenPwned should quickly convince you otherwise. A good password manager should be in everyone's toolkit, especially admins. Not just on Wikipedia, everywhere. I freely admit I haven't been able to set up my partner with a good password manager, though, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Some of those password managers even implement 2FA, though an argument could be made for doing that separately. I'd love to demand admins enable 2FA, but I do have to admit the user experience, both here and on other sites, just isn't up to snuff yet. --Yamla (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo, just pointing out that I struck that word in its original appearance and also gave a laughing emoji after the statement. No, I don't actually think you're a nutter. valereee (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Like Bish and others, I would be inclined to bail on the Project if they forced admin to use 2FA. Their current system is butt ugly with virtually no way to recover a lost token. And I never use a smartphone for Wikipedia, even to just read. Surely there are better ways to add security than the current 2FA system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Just for fun, I created a password strength estimator. For obvious reasons, please don't enter your real password. -FASTILY 23:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Fastily! I tried it with a password constructed on similar principles as mine, and got told it was "very unguessable - great", plus something about centuries that I didn't altogether understand:

• centuries — 100 attempts/hour (one machine, rate limiting in place)
• centuries — 10 attempts/sec (one machine, no rate limiting)
• centuries — offline attack, assumes multiple machines
• centuries — 10 billion attempts/sec, assumes aggressive attacker with access to many machines

Meaning it would take centuries no matter what..? I don't use it for any other purposes than Wikipedia, nor outside my home at any time - so no shoulder-surfing - and have complete faith in the discretion of my family. (My AI-professional son indeed advised me on how to construct a good password, that I can remember and nobody can guess.) TheresNoTime, I therefore don't really feel the need to get my head round WebAuthn at least not at this time. Sorry, but there was just a lot of thorny reading. Bishonen | tålk 23:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC).

It means you have a very strong password :) "centuries" means that it would probably take literal centuries for a hacker (of sufficiently advanced capabilities) to guess your password. -FASTILY 23:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, interesting! I did the same thing as Bish (created one from the principles I use) and came up with "safely unguessable", although I only got "centuries" for the first one. After that it was 31 years/12 days/1 sec. valereee (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fastily, thank you -- I like the "centuries" it says to me (if that particular deranged LTA wants to spend centuries trying to guess mine, it's fine with me -- it's certainly a better use of his time than spewing his usual cringey sputter). Antandrus (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, Fastily. According to your password strength estimator, setting your password to "This is my Wikipedia password." would be a great idea, as it would take centuries to guess. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It would, because no one actually guesses passwords, they try dictionary attacks, or of the have the hash they try and solve it locally. Length of really the best security for a password. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. There are 30 characters in the phrase "This is my Wikipedia password.". If we assume a limited character set of [A-Za-z.], that's 53 possible characters per position, which means that there are a total of 53³⁰ possible passwords. Using Power of 10 notation, this comes out to ~5.349 × 10⁵¹. For reference, the Earth contains 1.33 × 10⁵⁰ atoms. -FASTILY 00:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Another way to look at that, from a dictionary attackers point of view, is that it's just five of the most common words in English, in a somewhat predictable order. A dictionary attacker would eat it for breakfast. At least add some random stuff. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think that's still a step up from the average person who most certainly isn't choosing passwords like that. Obligatory xkcd. -FASTILY 01:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's say someone did that - everywhere they went their password was "This is my Wikipedia password." "This is my Facebook password." "This is my Hotmail password." "This is my bank account password." Technically, they are using a different password everywhere. It's a difficult password for a computer to guess, easy for them to remember. But all it takes is for one of those passwords to appear on a list of hacked passwords somewhere and it would be easy for hackers to guess all the others because of the obvious formula. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This illustrates a problem with any password quality checker: If well-implemented, then you can trust any answer of "this password is bad". But you can't always trust "this password is good"; all it takes is for the attacker to be using a different dictionary than the tool. For example, Fastily's checker says that "correct horse battery staple" is a good password. No, not a password I generated using the CHBS method. The actual string "correct horse battery staple". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I tried some well-known song lyric phrases: rock, hymns, folk music. Very easy for me to remember, but perhaps because they were sentences, they were considered to be unguessable, even though they were comprised of common words. Did not insert any symbols or unnecessary capitalization. Try some well-known verses from Led Zeppelin, and you will see my point. Is this because the sentence is long, or because a machine is unable to parse human speech? Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: See my comment just above. Not to pick on Fastily's estimator, but you really can't trust any such tool in that way. All you learned is that the phrase you typed isn't in Fastily's dictionary. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Your comment makes sense. As an older person, out of the loop, it's discouraging and confusing, attempting to follow instructions for strong passwords. Before the yr is out, I must upgrade my ancient (dumb) phone to a Smart Phone, so I guess 2FA is the best choice? Yet another learning curve? I am so confused. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Go low tech. Unless someone's likely to break into your house and rummage through your (physical) files in search of your passwords, just choose something really complex and write it down. And in the unlikely event that that's a real risk, write it down and lock it away. If you prefer high-tech, use a password manager (I use KeePass), but don't forget to make multiple backups of the password database. No don't use 2FA; you don't have any "dangerous" privileges so people aren't going to try that hard. You'll just end up locking yourself out. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks! I had to chuckle at your suggestion & myself! My WP password is difficult to remember, so I wrote it in an obscure poetry book. I have multiple hundreds of books in my old house, every room but the bathrooms! Still, what is considered "complex"? Length? A variety of capitalization? Symbols? A combination? Willing to stay low-tech, and consult my old books. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

My situation is like Yahya, every week I get notifications that someone is trying to log into my account. It's been going on for years, always a few every week. And often on other language Wikipedias. I think in part it's because I have a short username. But it seems random, it's not repeated attempts from a determined troll, that would be alarming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a specific determined troll targeting me almost daily, both with login attempts (across multiple projects) and with death threats. My password is strong, I have 2FA enabled, and I filter the emails. They aren't getting my account and I don't see the emails unless I check. Oh, the joys of volunteering at Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a reason WMF doesn't have a system for email or SMS 2FA? It seems like email would certainly be simple enough, and the SMS 2FA isn't exactly going to break the WMFs bank. That tends to be a lot more comfortable for users than a dedicated app to provide a code. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Email is already the recovery mechanism for passwords, so making it also the recovery mechanism for 2FA would mean one compromised email account would meet both factors. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Set a second email address for 2FA. I assume most everyone here already has one email address they use for Wikipedia, and another for personal. You're just never going to get buy-in on using 2FA with apps or an external key. My place of work can't even get buy-in for it, and they pay us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Email and SMS 2FA are notoriously insecure. Most security conscious services are phasing them out. MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, we're talking about Wikipedia though, not actual secure information. Here's a totally unreliable source that says SMS 2FA only stops 76% of attacks... is susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks, social engineering and SIM swapping. So 76% percent of what attacks? Who knows, but it's still leaps and bounds more secure than no 2FA. No reason to let perfect be the enemy of good. If someone is doing MITM SMS attacks, or cloning your SIM to get your Wikipedia password, well what the fuck. You're probably a spy using Wikipedia talk pages for one way blind coded messages, and should have better security anyway. Can also break MITM attacks by having a user text the code to Wikipedia, rather than the other way around, vastly improving the security. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  A bad actor doesn't even have to bother with SIM cloning these days, they just have to gin up a fake letter of authorization on the proper letterhead to get a copy of SMS messages forwarded in real time, as well as ability to spoof outgoing messages. There's no sense in building a system that we know will be junk before the first line of code is written. I'd rather see the foundation use some of their bloated budget to mail out hardware keys for admins. MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  For all the admins that will willingly disclose their mailing address to WMF? You're assuming that someone A) Wants to access AdminX's Wikipedia account, B) Already has AdminX's Wikipedia password, C) Has AdminX's mobile number, D) Is willing to forge documents and get involved with a telecom company to try and get realtime access to SMS messages and access to spoof outgoing SMS messages. That's the use case you're designing against? Rather than something that exists now, will prevent the vast majority of the already vanishingly few admin account compromises, and is much easier for people to use, so will have a much higher use rate? Sure you can mail individual hardware keys to every admin willing, and replace them as they get lost and such, and the foundation can maintain an list of people's addresses, usernames and hardware assigned to them so that 20% of admins will take part. Or, OR, you set something up that almost everyone can use very easily, isn't quite as secure, but has a much higher use rate resulting in a more secure environment than the more secure design. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  (nac) @ScottishFinnishRadish: a spy using Wikipedia talk pages for one way blind coded messages! Given some of the edits I see in recent changes, this possibility has crossed my mind. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would say it is almost certain that Wikipedia talk pages have been used in this way. It's a perfect platform for it. Now the quest to find IP range number stations begins! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Like a few people above, the WMF would be losing my services if they made me use the utterly useless Heath Robinson 2FA system that they currently claim to be useful. You'd think that we'd currently have developers working hard on crap like this, or the fact that a large amount of people using mobile devices don't even receive talk page messages, but apparently "Growth features" and fancy skins are far more important that people actually being able to use or administrate the project. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• As I'm one of the admins whose account was compromised back in 2015, I am quite shocked that the community focuses more me having weak password, not the hacker who committed the criminal act of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing my account. I'm Canadian and I don't know how this applies when the perpetrator (in any country), committing the act in the US (since WMF server is in the US) on a Canadian victim. But whoever hacked my account could have been sentenced up to 10 years in jail for that stunt according to the Canadian law. The community seems quite intent on blaming the victim. I draw the analogy that someone's house is being broken into. Instead of calling the police, the neighbours blamed the victim for installing a cheap lock that enabled the breaking in. To this date, I don't think CU (which would have IP address of the person committing the unauthorized access in a timely manner) has notified the police for this on-wiki crime. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Equating an Internet account compromise with a home invasion seems a bit too much of a hyperbole for my taste. Suppose that an elected official in your government uses a weak password to secure their social media account, and then an attacker manages to compromise the account and use it to mislead the public. Yes, the attacker would likely be guilty of a crime, but surely both the government official and the social media website should also bear some responsibility for not having stronger safeguards against the use of weak passwords. Mz7 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  It wouldn't be the job of volunteer CUs to notify law enforcement. That would be a WMF thing. I wouldn't assume they would tell us if they had; that might compromise an a investigation.

  I also agree with Mz7; going back to the house analogy; suppose you let a friend use your house while you're away on vacation. You explain to him that your neighborhood has had a rash of burglaries so could he please remember to lock the door and set the alarm when he's out. He heads out for drinks with the door wide open and no alarm set. Wouldn't you know it, someone walks out with your TV. Is it "victim-blaming" to be angry with your friend? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Suffusion of Yellow, please avoid using strawman argument or diminishing other people's experience. I didn't share my password with anyone so it was not like a friend borrowed the password and being careless about it. As you can see from that conversation, someone systematically crawled through the internet looking for leaked passwords. I am very disappointed that the community took a harsher stance towards sockpuppets, copyvios, incivility or harassment while letting real criminals (with clear evidence) off the hook without any punishment. Compromised account from this project alone is quite prevalent. Judging from Category:Compromised accounts and Wikipedia:List of resysopped users, over 400 editors and 15 admins in en.wp had their accounts compromised at some point. I do wonder if WMF Legal team has ever been notified in any of these 500 occurrences? Can Maggie Dennis comment if Legal/Trust & Safety team have ever been informed of account breaches and whether it was in any standard operating procedure for admins/stewards locking compromised accounts to contact legal team? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Accounts are stolen all the time, on many websites. I doubt the police does anything about it: one they'd be swamped with work if they tried to process these, two they often don't have jurisdiction, and three it's often difficult to find the attacker, not least due to use of proxies etc. Prosecution is even more difficult, and very costly. If a person uses a strong password, does not reuse that password, and takes basic security precautions to avoid getting malware on their computer, their account isn't going to be compromised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  A brief skim through Category:Compromised accounts suggests many of those are just WP:LITTLEBROTHER incidents. Surely, some 9-year-old walking up to a logged-in session and typing curse words is not a matter for law enforcement. And in your case, it looks like a white-hat did you (and us) a favor. Sure, they were a bit of trollish in how they went about it (could have sent an email to T&S, no?), but in the end they prevented someone with worse intentions from using your account. Back in 2015 admins had the ability to edit sitewide JS. I'm sure you're happy that no one used your account to add a privacy-violating tracker to Mediawiki:common.js. Now they possibly did violate some law or other, but it would be nonsensical to prosecute someone for merely demonstrating a security issue. Even if you disagree with that, I wouldn't assume there is "clear evidence" of who did it. There a good chance that they (correctly) used a VPN or a proxy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I know some high level NS_ people use very strong passwords and no 2FA on their personal stuff. Of course I don't ask why.North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit to a blacklist user talk page

I was trying to warn this editor for vandalism on Tek Fog having just reverted their vandalism. Please would you facilitate this warning Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

to be fair, they are a vandalism only account. Reported to AIV Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Geschichte

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Geschichte" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Geschichte (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

admin question

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

---

If an admin resigns, then retires, then returns, is that former admin automatically reinstated as an admin? soibangla (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla it depends on the situation, see Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship for most of the details. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 17 March 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.

Footnote

Is there any template/tag for adding footnotes. If any, kindly export it to Hindi Wikipedia. Emergency.अंजना सेठ (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@अंजना सेठ you could try w:hi:साँचा:Reflist. In any event, "export" can be done by anyone and wouldn't require an admin; "import" on hiwiki is up to the rules there. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

203.189.116.233

They have been blocked, but they have disrupted Wikipedia 25 times per the IP address' contributions. Up to 6 disruptive edits usually lead to a block. For 6 disruptive edits, I think a 3 day block would be appropriate. Should the block become 12.5 days for 25 disruptive edits? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block) 15:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have questions about an administrative action you are expected to make some attempt to discuss it with the administrator before bringing it for review here. Changing from a 7 day block to a 12.5 day block seems at best to be a completely pointless suggestion and certainly not worth an AN thread. Block durations are set based on the length of time needed to prevent continuing disruption, there isn't an "X hours of block per edit" type formula. Since these seem to be mobile edits it's probable that the person the block is targeted at will have a new IP in a matter of hours anyway. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on administrator activity levels

Please see the following RfC, suggesting that we increase the minimum activity requirements for administrators to an average of 20 edits per year, over a 5 year period.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements

Worm^TT(talk) 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Militant Left Australia (CWI)

Too secret for Wikipedia. Shhhhh! Ignore external hyperlink to the named person's news site, too. Xe didn't post it on a noticeboard to make it public. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Militant Left is a Trotskyist political party active in Australia. After a split, in 2019, in the Committee for a Workers' International (1974), the group was founded by former members of the Socialist Party who wished to affiliate to the 'refounded' Committee for a Workers' International (2019). Initially known as Socialist Party Australia CWI, it renamed itself Militant Left Australia in 2021. Ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Workers'_International_(2019) https://www.socialistworld.net/category/international/oceania/australia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John gowland (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure what type of request this is, but without further explanation I'm not sure it's relevant for this noticeboard. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I was asked to post it here first, so I did. John gowland (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC) We do not, at the present time, want this made public. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by John gowland (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC) It sounds like you're a representative of the organisation and you don't wish the article to exist -- is this correct? — Czello 15:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC) If it's reliably sourced, it must not be much of a secret . .. . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The CWI has existed for a long time, 1964. It has had, and still has sections in many countries. There have been splits, as there have been, and will continue to be in all political parties. In Australia the CWI section has only recently been re-established. When we are, with the CWI, in agreement with the name, of course we want it to be accessible to all. Please excuse me for not understanding some of the conventions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1080:1C9D:3165:F841:4C3F:D935 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverting very old edits

User:Encyclopedist & User talk:Encyclopedist both have been sysop-protected for 12 years now. This protection came after another unrelated editor removed the sockpuppetry notice from the user page & redirected it to their own user page & talk page. Some administrator should revert the pages back to the revision when it was not a redirect, and that sock notices were still present. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 15:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The redirect looks to be correct. If you look at the block log of Ulises Heureaux, you'll see he was blocked for sockpuppetry, and then unblocked as they had been given a second chance under a new name. The second account hasn't editted since 2010, and this all appears pointless. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The redirect is a standard way of linking two accounts belonging to one user. And yes, this is a pointless request after all this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time, a long time. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Unblock/exemption request

Hi All,

I'm a Wikimedian in residence at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and I ran into the problem that my work laptop's IP has been blocked from editing due to the use of the work VPN system. I've been able to continue editing from another laptop but I would like to request the unblock of my IP range. The smaller reason is that I could use my work laptop. But I realised that this will probably affect all the people at NIHR who will be attending editing trainings as they use the same VPN system as I did. I don't know too much about IPs and VPNs so I'm also asking your opinion on how to solve the situation so people at the NIHR could edit Wikipedia.

The IP address or range that has been blocked: 157.167.64.0/20

Thanks, Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've granted IPBE, starting at one year, so you can continue using your work laptop. At this time I don't see anyone else attempting to use this particular part of the network, but if you do encounter anyone seeing this block then feel free to let me know. If I can put it another way, you are probably just seeing a small part of the wider network. As for the network itself, Forcepoint, I'll leave that open for comments from the blocking admin, ST47, and others. It strikes me as very similar to a ZScaler situation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll ask others to try editing, we'll see if they have the same problem.

Best, Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:, @ST47:: A colleague of mine got a similar block when trying to register on Wikipedia while being on the VPN from home. "The IP address/range 85.115.52.0/23 has been disabled by ST47 for the following reason: colocationwebhost, Forcepoint-Cloud UK" etc. Please could you look into this? We have an edit-a-thon on Friday, it would be important to fix this issue somehow. Thank you. --Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

NSPORTS closure review

I'm requesting community review of the close at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, ideally from uninvolved editors. On 7 March I closed the discussion with my impressions from the discussion and its subproposals. Editors raised concerns on my talk page, and after about two days of responding I closed the user talk discussion and pointed further concerns here. Community review was not sought by participants. GiantSnowman raised concerns about the community response on my talk page and at the time I responded that I thought things were proceeding normally. Muboshgu then notified me of an edit war on the guideline page which resulted in the page being full-protected.

Clearly the result of the RfC is contentious and implementation is stalling in part because of concerns about whether my close is valid. To resolve these concerns, I hope community review will yield a firm outcome that can be implemented without further disruption. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the close, both in general and of the specific subproposals, was a reasonable and accurate reflection of the discussion and consensus resulting from it, even though I am personally disappointed that some of the subproposals, such as subproposal #10, were closed as "no consensus". The edit war noticed by Muboshgu is WP:STONEWALLING by editors who opposed the proposals, and isn't suggestive of an issue with the close. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Stonewalling aside, it's worth noting here the closer's conclusion in subproposal 1 that "Editors debated whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG" and "The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding". This contradicts the statement in the collapsible FAQ that "sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met". This reflects the established consensus as was built throughout the years, and so the closer wasn't in a position to challenge (effectively supervoting) it at that moment, especially since subproposal 11, which aimed to eliminate NSPORT's dependence on GNG, ended in failure. Wugapodes also had to cherrypick a DRv which suited his conclusion (that NSPORTS doesn't necessarily require GNG) while ignoring others that did not (1, 2, 3). That part of the closure needs to be amended. Avilich (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ping Amakuru and JoelleJay who raised the issue in the closer's talk page. Avilich (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  But that statement contradicts the policy itself which reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. I think it's obvious that the policy document itself should supersede the FAQ. NemesisAT (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No 'policy' says that. The very purpose of the FAQ is to clarify ambiguities in the main text, so it supersedes any isolated sentence that just so happened to escape scrutiny. The FAQ is the result of years of RfCs and consensus building, and it is clearly the FAQ which reflects the ultimate spirit of the guideline. Avilich (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on your interpretation of the FAQ and personally perfer to go with what the guideline, and WP:N actually say. NemesisAT (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is about NSPORT, not N. Avilich (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The part of the guideline Nemesis is quoting doesn't even apply to determining notability or whether a subject merits an article: it is essentially equivalent to the instructions at AfC requiring assertions of notability be sourced, which is not necessarily the same as actually demonstrating notability. For subjects strictly under GNG (and failing ANYBIO), to be accepted at AfC a claim to notability must be supported by SIGCOV in multiple IRS: they have to show they meet GNG from the start. But NSPORT SSG-meeting subjects can be accepted with a claim to notability sourced only to an RS verifying they meet the SSG. That doesn't mean the subject is notable, it just means they don't need to demonstrate they meet GNG immediately (and in practice, don't need to until notability is actually challenged). For NSPORT, this sourcing requirement is also applied to all articles, not just ones that go through AfC. @Isaacl maybe could provide more info on this. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What a bizzare and contrived way to interpret that sentence. Of course the first paragraph in an SNG applies to determining notability, that's what SNGs are for. Another sentence in the lead, Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). again suggests that notability can be presumed if a subject meets GNG or NSPORTS by suggesting that notability does not need to be established in other ways if NSPORTS is met. NemesisAT (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence states This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. This establishes the notability criteria as being GNG, with NSPORT SSGs helping to predict which subjects will meet GNG. How do you interpret that sentence? In particular the part where it says "and thus merit an article"? Or the part in the third sentence where it says then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article? Why does this link to GNG and nowhere else, and why does it say the inclusion criteria?

The second sentence is describing the sourcing requirements for an article to be in mainspace without being speedily deleted or rejected from AfC. That's not a "bizarre and contrived" interpretation, that's literally what that sentence was intended to mean.

The consensus is and has been that NSPORT presumes GNG notability but does not supersede it, and that the presumption is rebuttable. It takes extreme levels of WP:IDHT to ignore the result of the 2017 RfC, the entire purpose of the successful NOLY RfC, the explicit rationale behind the deletion of hundreds of SSG-meeting athletes, and the stated reason for upholding numerous DRVs. Claiming the guideline is just "internally inconsistent" means you have to ignore that overwhelming precedent as well as the several places in NSPORT where prediction of GNG is described, like the entirety of the FAQs (which haven't been challenged in 5 years). JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The FAQs, while they derived from the 2017 RfC close, are pretty badly flawed (it was not a very good close). For one thing, they constantly refer to the "GNG", which does not apply to biographies, which most of the subjects covered by NSPORTS actually are. It should instead refer to NBASIC. Likewise, sports organizations should be meeting the (stricter) NORG requirements- a GNG pass is not, by site-wide policy, enough. "Both sides" of these NSPORTS disputes are so far up a rabbit hole, IMO, that it is difficult for an "outsider" even to understand what went wrong - bot-like creation of unsourced articles has been allowed to result in some highly motivated reasoning about Notability, when the actual problem is much more of a WP:MEATBOT issue, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The FAQs, while they derived from the 2017 RfC close Uh no they were not. They predated that RfC by about 4 years, and reflect the consensus present from very early on that NSPORT predicts GNG.

For one thing, they constantly refer to the "GNG", which does not apply to biographies Where does it say GNG doesn't apply to biographies??? Just because there's a link to a people-specific SNG doesn't mean GNG can't apply, especially when BASIC itself links to the GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologize; you are right about the first thing; I have been holding the RfC close responsible for the misleading FAQ language, when it is much more likely that the misleading FAQ language helped skew the 2017 RfC.

For the second thing, where in WP:NBIO do you get the idea that the GNG applies to biographies, as some kind of underlying or alternative standard? That isn't what a see also reference means, nor is it backed up anywhere else in the guidelines AFAIK. The way NBIO is written, if someone wanted to argue that a biography meets the GNG though not NBASIC (say because IND is more strictly laid out in the latter guideline) then that argument should be given no weight, in the same way that, if someone argued that a publication passed NBOOK but not someone's idiosyncratic GNG exegesis, the latter argument for deletion would cut no weight either. NBASIC clearly supercedes the GNG for biographies in the same way that NORG does for companies. I thought this was clear enough from WP:N and NBIO themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, there are thousands of biography AfDs that not only did not appeal to NBASIC or ANYBIO, but which explicitly hinged on whether the subject met GNG. Again, where do you see that GNG is always prohibited from applying to biographies? JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on the quality of AfD discussions. The fact remains, though, that in 95% of cases there is no appreciable difference between the GNG and NBASIC - that doesn't change the fact that it is NBASIC that applies to biographies. The GNG can't apply in those cases any more than it can for books or for organizations (and yes, I've seen contributors cite the GNG in book AfDs and SIGCOV in ORG AfDs - that doesn't change the fact that neither is strictly relevant in those instances). This is the simple logic of these guidelines, and is quite straightforwardly presented on the relevant pages IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is this exclusion of GNG straightforwardly presented? And how does that track with the multiple SNGs that explicitly defer to GNG/require equivalent sourcing? Are you genuinely claiming we must ignore the parts of an SNG that explicitly state its subjects can also be notable through meeting GNG, like WP:NPROF; or where the SNG defines itself specifically as a way to explain how the general notability guideline applies to its subjects, like WP:NFILM; or an SNG that ultimately requires GNG, like WP:NSPORT and WP:NWEB; or any SNG where the criteria are virtually identical to those of the GNG, e.g. requiring independent sources that provide in-depth information about the [subject]? JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've made myself understood (based on this reply), so I will try again. SNGs certainly can attempt to predict or defer to the GNG, but not all do. WP:NBASIC is one of the ones that does not. So on the face of it, what the 2017-2022 version of NSPORT did for athletes was to carve out an exceptional set of biographies to which the GNG rather than NBASIC is the relevant standard. This is silly, though, and incompatible with WP:CONLEVEL, and I can't imagine, for the small number of cases affected by the difference (mostly matters where NBASIC is stricter about independent sourcing), that anyone actually intended that the GNG standards apply rather than NBASIC.

In strict parallel to this, the 2017-2022 version of NSPORT also apparently intended to carve sports leagues out of NORG requirements and apply only the much looser GNG standards to them. Some people may actually have intended or desired this, but I would argue that the idea still runs afoul of WP:CONLEVEL. I would even go as far as to say that the current NORG carve-out for sports teams should be rethought (apparently they only need to meet GNG standards, but I can't imagine that this was anyone's thought through intention, either) - but because this is explicit in NORG, it would require some new consensus to eliminate the carveout.

So of course I am not saying that all SNGs are hermetically sealed from the GNG, which would be absurd. Some operate quite differently (GEOLAND, and in another sense NORG and NNUMBER), while others defer to it (NWEB) and others replace it while maintaining a very similar structure (NBOOK, NFILM and NBASIC). Some allow parallel paths - NPROF allows NBASIC as an alternative, for example. But what I am saying is that for SNGs that do structurally replace the GNG, typically by specifying criteria on similar principles (NORG, NNUMBER, NBASIC, NBOOK, and NFILM, notably), there is no recourse "outside" that SNG back into the GNG, unless explicitly carved out. Since there is no carveout for athletes in NBASIC, it - not the GNG - therefore applies to them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The controversy isn't about the RFC closure but its implementation, whether that should happen immediately or whether the guidelines are changed once a suitable replacement is formed. It's not stonewalling to stop an edit war, it's trying to rein in the chaos and if it happens again, I expect there will be blocks handed out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To clarify, Muboshgu wasn't stonewalling when they protected the page. The stonewalling was by the editors who were reverting attempts to implement the consensus, rather than attempting to address any inconsistencies or other issues (such as a need for copy editing) that resulted from its implementation.BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Liz Well, part of it is about the closure. The closing statement for #1, despite having probably the correct outcome, is a gross mischaracterization of the proposal, the arguments, and the status quo ante consensus interpretation of NSPORT, and it absolutely needs to be amended. The claim that the proposal aimed to introduce a requirement for GNG is completely false, but he uses this definition and the fact #1 only got 55% numerical support as evidence that the interpretation of NSPORT that the subproposal references is not in fact consensus. To support his case he then specifically cites one DRV that was not brought up in the subproposal discussion (and did not even attest to any interpretive consensus) while deliberately ignoring the dozens of appropriate AfD/DRV examples that were actually mentioned there (and which did explicitly state NSPORT interpretation consensus). He additionally misrepresents a select quotation from NSPORT as if it was the only textual backing for the proposal's interpretation offered by supporters, and then tears it down with the specious assertion that the guideline doesn't include certain wording -- all while neglecting to acknowledge the comprehensive rebuttals to identical claims made within the discussion, including multiple examples of other textual support, including one with the exact wording he said was lacking. All of this, coupled with his history of unfamiliarity with the guideline followed by hostile rejection of the (again, reaffirmed-many-times-over consensus) interpretation of NSPORT in a very demeaning response(*) at a prior RfC (which itself confirmed consensus!), demands quite a bit more scrutiny of this close than what has been suggested so far.

  (*)

  Your comment is based on multiple false premises. NSPORT specifically requires article subjects meet GNG This is so false I suspect you haven't actually read NSPORT or N. To quote the big bold text at the top of NSPORT: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (emphasis original). You incorrectly interpret policy on the talk page of that policy, and yet you seem to think that making more and more restrictive rules will improve compliance? Call me suspicious.

  JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think this was a difficult close and a difficult discussion. The RfC is titled "Abolish the current version of NSPORTS" and subsequent proposals largely attempted to narrow the discussion. The vast majority of editors did not support that initial proposal. The challenge became, as the closer mentioned, "most editors lost interest" in the sub-proposals and there was no initial discussion/survey on what the community actually thinks is a problem with NSPORT. Some editors expressed concerns that there are too many articles about sportspeople, others expressed concern that there are too many stubs based solely on databases, and the initial proposer stated that a problem was that too many editors at AFD just say passes N(insert sport) without examining the actual sources used. Because there were differing understandings of the problem (and the scope of those problems), the sub-proposals were all over the place. Each sub-proposal sought to address what one editor thought would address the problem or as a potential compromise to a previous sub-proposal. These sub-proposals, if adopted, may or may not work well together. My issue with the close is that closer saw all of the sub-proposals as discrete discussions and not how they interacted with each other. An example of this is the closer's discussion of proposal 4. If Proposal 3 were to reach consensus, proposal 4 should not be closed as "no consensus" but closed as moot. Similarly, I don't think the closer considered whether editors would still support proposal 3 if proposal 5 were to pass or what implications if any the two proposals have with each other and the SNG as a whole. I also agree with comments that the close did not anticipate implementation problems or propose tentative ways forward that could unite the community. --Enos733 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Here is the complaint I made regarding subproposal 1 on the talk page before being pointed to this discussion. I outlined the closing statement's total misrepresentation of subproposal 1, the existing consensus on NSPORT, and the consensus (or lack thereof) within the subproposal discussion. I am deeply concerned that the closing statement's faulty evaluation of NSPORT's purpose/consensus interpretation could be used to rewrite NSPORT as entirely independent of GNG (or at least strongly encourage its interpretation as such), when the proposal that actually aimed to do that completely failed. I would ask BilledMammal to please reconsider his endorse in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The closing of proposal 5 with removing the "from inceptioin part" is not what the proposer meant and what the people were voting for. Therefore such radical change of the essential part of the proposal seems as a supervote. Also proposal three seems as a clear no consensus to me, especially if we compare it with an original proposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The whole RfC was flawed from the beginning, when notifications to NSPORTS projects were labelled as canvassing in an attempt to bring in partisan editors. The whole thing grew out of control into a monster walls of text, including constant replies and questioning on every comment by a couple of users who were working to push it through (BilledMammal has 128 comments and RandomCanadian 66). The whole thing reeks of setting out to destroy NSPORTS (and if not manage to completely remove, to seriously gut and maim), and not to improve it. --SuperJew (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • There were also attempts to stonewall by complaining of a lack of legitimacy when "no new notice to the impacted sports projects" for the times new subproposals were created in the same discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • To be fair, some of the apparent discrepancy between the consensus (or not) on the original proposal and the consensus (or not) on various subproposals might be explained if editors had !voted on the original proposal before other proposals were added. I don't see any real attempt by the closer to evaluate this question, but it seems a fairly fundamental flaw in the RfC process - I don't find it reasonable to expect editors to watchlist and recheck every RfC to which they contribute. In RfCs on other subjects, I have seen participating editors explicitly pinged when additional options or questions were added, if they contributed to a prior state of the question(s), but I didn't see any evidence of that in my skim of this RfC. FWIW, I am uninvolved in the RfC/subject area: while I read the close thoroughly (many passages more than once), I have only skimmed the original bludgeoning chaos discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the accusation of bludgeoning is appropriate. I made less comments than other editors, and RandomCanadian made around the same number of comments as many other editors. Further, most of the comments made by myself and other editors with high comments was not to argue against other positions in response to the proposals, but in response to general discussions, to ask for clarification, to clarify ones own position, and more. Finally, it is always appropriate to raise concerns about canvassing, even if not all editors agree that it is canvassing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think the closer did the best job they could, but the sheer number of subproposals in an RfC of that size is going to be problematic. It's fair to say that in a discussion the length of a novel subproposal #5 of #10 probably isn't going to get as much scrutiny as it should for a contentious change of this magnitude. Hut 8.5 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe there was consensus in favour of proposal 3, and this is the one that has the biggest ramifications – i.e. the removal of most of the criteria in WP:NSPORTS, leaving many sportseople with no SNG. I would like to see this part of the close overturned to no consensus, or at the very least, reopened and reclosed by a panel. Number 57 08:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The whole RfC was a rambling mess that initially had lots of contributors, but then tailed-off into 12 different proposals. I think it is very hard to come to a firm consensus taking into account all of the initial discussion along with the later sub-proposals and how editors would agree with a certain proposal only if another one failed. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Mostly endorse - the close was a very good summary of the discussions that took place, and also reflective of the broad consensus of the community dating back to the 2017 RFCs which established the prior guideline. My one objection, as alluded to by Alivich above, is that in finding no consensus for proposal #1, the closer has misrepresented the status quo ante. The 2017 RFCs clearly established the need for sports bios to meet GNG, this requirement has never been repealed, and nor should it be repealed through a discussion which resulted in no consensus. While some AFDs and DRVs may fail to adhere to this principle, many others (again, as noted by Avilich) followed exactly that principle, deleting articles which met NSPORTS but did not appear to meet GNG. The goal should be to crystallize the guidelines so that DRVs which don't match guidelines, like the one the Wugapodes linked to in their close summary, do not occur again. I have to say, the attempt by some editors to cast doubt on this close (without even having brought it here for review themselves) through edit warring the changes made and dismissing the whole RFC as a "rambling mess" is not what I consider good etiquette. WP:DROPTHESTICK already - the community has spoken, and the NSPORT guidelines as we've known them are going to be changed. This is long overdue anyway IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - in hindsight, given the scope and size of the RFC, a panel should probably have closed - and then, like I have suggested multiple times, actually implement the close. Letting the community do it is clearly not working. There has been an edit war and the page is now protected to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman 10:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with Black Kite below that the close of #3 was probably wrong. There was consensus for NSPORTS to be tightened, but not for sports to be entirely removed. GiantSnowman 10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This was difficult to close as it was (as mentioned above) a big rambling mess, but I have to say that I can't see consensus for Proposal 3 - it's not far off 50-50. Also, one thing that seems to have escaped a lot of people in that discussion is that the "one professional appearance" criteria is actually designed to prevent lots and lots of stubs - removing it could ironically increase the number, as there will be plenty of players who have only ever played in semi-professional leagues who have coverage ... Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I may be wrong, but your comment here suggests you may be missing the point of these changes. The goal is not to "prevent lots and lots of stubs", it is merely to remove stubs where no significant sourcing exists and which can therefore never be expanded into any sort of sizeable article. If someone from the semi-professional leagues has coverage, then they meet our definition of notability and are eligible for an article (or at the very least a paragraph somewhere per WP:NOPAGE), while if a professional player does not have any coverage at all then they should not have one, irrespective of which league they play in. This principle applies pretty much across the whole project, and the change brought about by this RFC merely reaffirms that it applies to sports people too.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Amakuru, and would add that I don't believe I've ever seen NSPORTS used as Black Kite suggests it has been used - to support the deletion of an article that would otherwise meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  It hasn't been used in that way because that would go against what is written at WP:N, which states that notability is presumed on passing either an SNG or GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is again entirely missing the point regarding NSPORT and GNG. NSPORT explicitly does ultimately require GNG (as do many other SNGs, for example NCORP or NASTRO), as affirmed in 2017 and re-affirmed here. People ignoring that is those people's problem and maybe a lack of clarity issue. But it's not one where the guidelines are contradictory - unless you deliberately attempt to interpret them as such. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  You've missed the point of the comment and my reply. Even if a subject fails an SNG it can still be presumed notable under GNG, that was what I was pointing out. NemesisAT (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I'm missing the point, because the proposal dealing with the issue of insufficient sourcing is Subproposal 5, which clearly did have consensus, and no-one is complaining about; I'm talking about Subproposal 3, the appearances SNG. It's all very well saying that someone "with coverage meets our definition of notability"; but we're talking about the minutiae of sports coverage here. The prof appearances SNG was designed to at least stem the flow of badly-sourced bios which might have marginal notability through providing a specific metric. Black Kite (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Subproposal 5, which clearly did have consensus, and no-one is complaining about Some people are definitely complaining about it -- there's one such comment above. --JBL (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  This analysis seems flawed. The close explained very well why it wasn't a headcount – arguments citing lack of replacement were given less weight because the replacement guideline already exists at GNG (also SPORTCRIT and BASIC) – and NSPORT participation criteria have not routinely served the described function. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with Amakuru. It would be great if the unfortunate characterization in the close of proposal 1 could be amended. --JBL (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have to say I thought that Wugapodes was brave to take on the RfC to try and close it himself. Maybe a new user group needs to be added to wikipedia, one that deals with editing policy/guideline project pages. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closure accurately reflects consensus on a very complex series of proposals and counter proposals. Wugapodes should be commended for taking this on.

The problem is not with the closure, but with the next step - figuring out how to implement consensus on such a complex series of proposals. That will probably take some follow-up RFC’s. There is no rush. Take it slowly and deliberately. We will get there eventually. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Someone probably wants to tell User:BilledMammal that, given their editing pattern on the policy pages and bludgeoning of AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Fernandez, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Lablache) from pretty much the moment the RfC was closed. WP:NOHURRY. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, the bludgeoning has been from the beginning of the RfC, including accusing editors of canvassing when they notified the affected WikiProjects (which is funny now that their tune is "there was an RfC that everyone could attend so if you didn't that's your problem".) --SuperJew (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS an invalid argument at AfD" is not exactly the poster child of neutral notification (given the rather alarmist title, despite the rest)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Note that I was a participant in the discussion. I'm not seeing the consensus on subproposal three and feel that one should have been no consensus. That being said I think overall the closer has done a good job given the complexity of the discussion. NemesisAT (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (involved in the RFC), mostly I think it was a good close, but I just do not see how proposal three had a consensus and suggest that one be overturned (to "no consensus"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment/Endorse Mostly the close seems fine, although a few elements (subproposal 1, mostly, as argued) might need a few corrections. The issue around proposal 3 mostly seems to have been lack of clarity around its implementation (the close seems procedurally fine, and the reasoning is well explained, and there is nothing preventing closers from giving less weight to some arguments when they are not very persuasive); and maybe a bit of an adverse reaction to the edit warring. I've attempted to move towards a constructive non-confrontational resolution to that on the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Implementing_the_RfC_-_participation_criteria_-_interim_status), so hopefully that should give a pause to such concerns. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse I think that it was a good close. The fact that comments above ranged from "too cautious" to "not cautious enough" reinforces that. The inevitable challenges are not related to the close and are two-fold:

  A result that many people won't like. It's only human that some might wiki-lawyer nit-pick it. Others could do various things to prevent or mire down implementation.

  Implementation is much more complex because the subject wording is embedded in many many places in the guideline.

Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 North8000 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)(talk • contribs)

• Comment terrible close, way too many discussions open, and BilledMammal and RandomCanadian dominated discussion with hundreds of comments to push their pointed agenda. There was no consensus from the community, there was push back against sports users commenting. The whole thing was a joke and should be overturned and handled in a completely different way going forward.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Instead of attempting to belittle other editors as fanatics with a pointed agenda and dismiss the whole thing as a joke, you'd better stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and instead attempt to back-up your assertions with facts. Problem is, once you do look at those facts, what you are saying is about as utterly ridiculous as it gets. The page statistics are incomplete (as this was moved part-way through); but extrapolating a bit, and looking at the amount of added bytes (instead of the raw number of edits, which can give misleading impressions due to various factors), there is no single editor or group of editors who overwhelmed the discussion (between the time the page was moved and when it was closed, the page size grew from 350ish kb to nearly 850kb, but the top 10 editors (including editors who were very much opposed to the proposal, like Bagumba or Nfitz, or more moderate, like Cbl), only contributed, all 10 together, to less than half of that... In light of that, your comment seems more like a generic grievance against the idea of the RfC as a whole (and probably it's result) than an actual valid reason why the close would be incorrect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for pinging me User:RandomCanadian, when you raised me at AN - I only just saw this. Personally, I didn't even read the last few weeks about it - it jumped the shark after about the 4th proposal - and the argument that there should be no notification to those at NSPORTS and related projects because they might be biased was very bizarre, and should alone have voided the entire process; I see no consensus on any of it, merely a handful trying to push a minority position through bludgeoning. Though that would be an opinion, and you and I were not the ones asked to contribute to this discussion - which you all seem to be bludgeoning none-the-less. Nfitz (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Nfitz: You've commented more in this closure review than RandomCanadian (nine comments to eight). Neither of you are bludgeoning, though, as neither of you are dominating the conversation or replying to most comments. However, WP:BLUDGEON does state To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided and I would suggest you are more cautious when making such accusations in the future - I also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashion London where you accuse me of bludgeoning for making two comments. BilledMammal (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a very disingenuous count, User:BilledMammal, as there is only a single post from me about the review - which didn't even take a position, merely noted that the review should be by those uninvolved. The other posts were in a separate sub-thread about freezing NSPORTS until the review was finished - which also entirely neutral. Though I hadn't intended to single out RC; I'll adjust my pronoun. To be honest there is similar from all sides. It's a systemic problem that those at a review spend more time arguing the case, than reviewing the close - DRV is plagued with such issues. Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Considering only this section, at the time of my previous comment you had two comments and RandomCanadian had four - neither of you are bludgeoning. Even editors with higher post counts, such as NemesisAT (seven) are not bludgeoning. However, you are too quick to accuse editors that you disagree with of bludgeoning, as are some of the other editors in this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (took part in subproposal 1 and 5, came from WP:NSPORTS talk). I believe the close reflected the rough consensus (or lackthereof) at the RfC, and I think North8000's comment helps explain why the close is being challenged. I just read subproposal 3 in its integrality, and while the split is 60-40 to support the proposal without looking at the arguments, the judgement by the closer to give little weight to "no replacement"-type votes, because they are not substantial but procedural in nature, is in my opinion valid. When taken together, as the closer correctly asserts, proposals 3 and 4 show a community consensus to dispense with participation-based criteria. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I also note a strong WikiProject Football turnout in this discussion due to this discussion, referenced above. To all future editors, kindly disclose where you came from if you participate in this discussion and whether you previously participated in the RfC. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I also agree that editors at this review need to disclose whether they were involved or not. Those who "got what they wanted" would be happy with the results, and those who opposed the results would be unhappy. This review needs a lot more uninvolved users to take a look. Sorry, to follow my own disclosure ask: I heard about this RfC from the NFL WikiProject, but did not participate in the RfC. Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a clear consensus to do things to stop flooding Wikipedia with substandard articles that do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think "clear consensus" is a bit of a stretch. Also, you ought to disclose your (very significant) involvement in the discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved) Main issue I see with the close is with Subproposal 3, described as a "rough consensus". I believe this should be overturned as no consensus. The RfC was an unwieldy mess and the bludgeoning by those seeking to abolish NSPORTS may well have discouraged those with an opposing view from participating. Jevansen (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (uninvolved in the RfC) Seconding Jevansen - I was definately deterred from bothering to participate due to the bludgeoning by BilledMammal and (less so) by RandomCanadian - from the claims at the beginning of notifying WikiProjects being canvassing and bringing partisan editors, through the bludgeoning in the discussion itself, and also due to past interactions with them on AfDs which they've exhibited similar patterns. --SuperJew (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Uninvolved with the RfC, but very much involved in WikiProject Tennis discussions on this matter, so only partially uninvolved, alas. Pilaz (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse- The most important part of the RfC, namely that database scrapes != biographies, plainly gained consensus because the remaining objections were procedural rather than substantial in nature. Reyk _YO! 21:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I occasionally post at WT:FOOTY , but did not take part in the RfC. As mentioned above, my only issue with the RfC close is Subproposal 3, which I do not believe has consensus (it's around 55-45%, which isn't really enough on numbers to divert away from the status quo, but also that a number of the Support !votes there appeared to be under the incorrect impression that an SNG confers automatic notability, which it clearly doesn't). Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, most people not engaged in writing one-line substubs already understand this. It's the defenders of such gunk who treat meeting their own SNG that tend to claim that SNG pass = automatic notability and unchallengeable exemption from sourcing requirements. At some point, when you're confronted with people who keep misinterpreting what SNG/SNG actually say at one AfD after another, you eventually decide, "Bugger it, we'll just redo the SNG." Reyk _YO! 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Evidence from AFD suggests that any views on SNGs similar to those described by BK are most common in those opposing these proposals. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm assuming good faith here (it's been a few months), but you did indeed participate in the RfC: Special:Diff/1066711996, Special:Diff/1067298946. Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I count seven comments, including four !votes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good grief, I am clearly losing it in my old age and had completely forgotten that was the same RfC. Struck. Thanks for pointing it out. You will note that I was actually against the concept of SNGs in general, though, so I don't have an axe to grind about Prop.3. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  From my count proposal 3 had a numerical count of 28 support to 22 oppose. However, at least one oppose was procedural (issues with not having a replacement), 1 oppose was changed to neutral and seemed to only oppose grandfathering in exceptions to #3, and 2 opposes were on the basis that this proposal didn't go far enough -- which is antithetical to the intent of the bulk of oppose !votes and should not be counted with them. There were also at least 3 comments that were supportive. So that leaves us with 28-18 at worst and 35-18 at best if we want to count opposes and comments. JoelleJay (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Although uninvolved in the discussion, I agree with other editor's concerns above about the process of the RfC, particularly SuperJew and Jevansen - the discussion was an "unwieldy mess", the constant walls of text make it very difficult to follow, and the constant addition of sub-proposals surely didn't help either, which, alongside the bizarre accusations of WP:CANVASS and the seeming bludgeoning of the debate all surely limited participation from the WP:SPORTS community in a way that is not helpful for reaching a broad consensus on the matter. I also agree that the closer was incorrect to close subproposal #3 as a consensus, when there was a roughly-even split of !votes, and would support closing as no consensus or a reopening of the discussion. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the implementation of proposal 3, the consensus was rough and the discussion much less well attended than proposal 1. The whole RFC was substantially expanded midway into many proposals which made it a trainwreck when people who had voiced their opinion at proposal 1 would have assumed that their participation had been enough. There was also substantial bludgeoning which put off good faith editors. I think I made 1 comment at proposal 3 or it may have been at proposal 1. The solution in my opinion is to allow each wikiproject to craft their own sng and if there is goodfaith opposition then have a seperate RFC for each one rather than slamming them all into one RFC which would be another trainwreck. Also leaving it to the noisiest editors at the WP:NSPORTS talkpage is just a recipe for another edit war, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good idea! Let's allow ask each WikiProject to create SNGs on their own, so that they can make them as extensive as possible in order to make everyone notable. Let's just hope that WikiProject Royalty and Nobility doesn't make their SNG so broad that the daughters of cadet branches of minor lords who die in infancy suddenly become notable! Pilaz (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Or we could assume good faith and realise that also most editors form WikiProjects want to include notable players on Wikipedia. If you follow football articles and AfDs you'll see that in almost all cases of a player scraping through NFOOTY, but not passing GNG, the article is deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Difficult to close, yes, but also the truest type of consensus discussion, which is truly about discussion, compromise, and meeting the legitimate concerns of others. I think, substantively, the entire analysis does represent the consensus position, in which a very large number of editors participated, expressed concerns, and tried to reach compromises. Wugapodes's analysis seems to have correctly extracted the parts editors agreed on the most. That doesn't mean everyone agreed on them, and different people will disagree on different parts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Closer comment I appreciate the comments so far, though like others I was hoping for more input from uninvolved editors. So far the concerns seem focused on proposals 1 and 3. The concern with the close of proposal 1 seems to center around whether the result of a 2017 RfC should still be considered controlling in light of the no-consensus close, and whether the close should be revised to reflect that. The concern with the close of proposal 3 is whether the consensus result accurately reflects the discussion. Further discussion from uninvolved editors would be helpful in revising the close and determining next steps. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think the community has finished talking about this. The close of this RfC needs to be understood as the staging point that will lead to a more focused attempt at progress. The community is not happy about sports notability. Personally, I feel that the RfC outcome as determined by Wugapodes reflects the nose count but is hard to reconcile with our strict rules about sourcing biographies of living people.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Request The review was a request, particularly from uninvolved editors. Yet what I see is a lot of comments from involved editors - including ones that bludgeoned the RFC itself. Is there a way to tag those who are involved (perhaps by striking), to better understand what uninvolved editors think? (I'm involved). Nfitz (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Closer comment I have revised the close of proposal 1 to clarify the reasoning and suggest next steps on how to resolve the propblem of how to interpret the relationship between NSPORTS and the GNG. Editors here are split on proposal 3 variously endorsing it or saying it should be overturned to no consensus. Further review or a close of this discussion by uninvolved editors would be helpful in resolving that aspect of the close. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Since no 'uninvolved editors' have commented further on this, I'll say that I endorse Pilaz's analysis of closure 3: the procedural arguments ("no replacement") discounted, there was a clear consensus for the current outcome, which already had a majority supporting it anyway. Avilich (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for reevaluation of subproposal 1 closing statement

Following several unfruitful discussions at Wugapodes' talk page, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to please review the subproposal 1 closing statement with respect to the following:

1. What Wugapodes asserts is the purpose of proposal 1 (whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG) versus the context and stated intent of the proposal (All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD).

2. His assessment of overall !voter sentiment, and specifically whether we should assume all opposition (re: The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding) is to his version of proposal 1 whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG or to the proposed restriction of when notability is challenged at AfD. I would like to point to this comment by an oppose !voter to challenge the assumption that !voters were unaware of the distinction between the two: There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now"

3. How faithfully the rest of his statement reflects the status quo ante consensus interpretation of NSPORT as discussed in the proposal, including whether his conclusions are accurate given the strength of the arguments. I would appreciate particular attention to his invoking one undiscussed DRV outcome while ignoring all of those brought up in the discussion, and his claim that the NSPORT guideline only says subjects "should" and not "must" meet GNG without acknowledging that multiple editors in the discussion had pointed out a place where NSPORT does say "must".

4. Whether the existence of proposal 11, Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, implying the current NSPORT guideline is in fact dependent on GNG, should be entirely disregarded as evidence of a pre-existing consensus.

5. The merits of his conclusion that a) all opposition to proposal 1 was opposition to his version of the proposal scope, and therefore was a direct rejection of the interpretation of NSPORT that places it ultimately subordinate to GNG; b) the ~35–45% opposition to proposal 1 means the above interpretation was not the consensus before the RfC; and c) that opposition is sufficient to overturn a consensus if it was in place beforehand.

6. Whether it appropriate for him, despite acknowledging majority support, to unilaterally fail part 1 of subproposal 8 (Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG.) on the basis The first part was substantially similar to proposal 1. ... To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus. Proposal 1 was better attended and did not find consensus, so proposal 8 is not sufficient to overturn that. Was his assessment that this proposal and proposal 1 are materially equivalent accurate given the proposals' wording/arguments and in the context of the existing NSPORT text? JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd encourage editors to read through my talk page where I've answered various iterations of these complaints. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Apologies for any formatting issues, I'm on mobile at work) I very much appreciate the substantial amendments Wugapodes made to his close, however I still strongly dispute equating opposition to the proposal with opposition to the select interpretation of it he has ascribed to oppose !voters (that is, that they were specifically against the premise of GNG (already) being ultimately required) when that was NOT what most !voters understood the proposal to be. A closer should not be assigning intent to ambiguous !votes, especially if it is then used to justify weakening a statement that was not even under review. Only 15 out of 70 !votes were even ambiguous enough to possibly be interpreted as opposing the GNG requirement itself, that is very far from a "no consensus" on that question! JoelleJay (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Process questions

A few editors raised process-related questions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that are going to come back up regardless of how this is closed. It would help to have some admin eyes on the page to make sure that folks are raising legitimate concerns rather than stonewalling.

1. Which changes are to be implemented immediately and which require further discussion? Should we delete participation-based criteria immediately or wait until replacements have been agreed on? Should this decision be left to the relevant wikiprojects?
2. Is there consensus to "gut" or heavily trim sections of NSPORTS? Is this constructive, disruptive or a back-door attempt to abolish the guideline?
3. Who may implement the changes that have consensus? Must it be the closer? May it be editors who were heavily involved in the discussion? Should it be someone who's completely uninvolved? Is the closer obligated to oversee the process? –dlthewave ☎ 04:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts on these. (1) Generally changes should be implemented as quickly as possible, but not necessarily immediately if there turn out to be practical problems. For the participation-based criteria specifically, if a wikiproject is actively working on replacements then it might make sense to wait for that, but in general any future replacements can just be added back later since either way they'd need consensus to implement. (2) Yes. Participants in the general discussion pointed out that while the guideline as a whole should not be deprecated, problems with the guideline should be fixed through editing and rewriting. (3) In my experience anyone has been able to implement RfC closures, but that seems to have failed here. How we fix that is a useful point of discussion. I'm willing to help oversee the implementation (regardless of the review outcome), but I think the more help from uninvolved editors here the better. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• In regards to the process questions, yes, implement immediately (unless there was literally a replacement being discussed atm) - because GNG will always be available, so it's not a case where we'd be severing entirely. While it's a major re-write, it still leaves significant aspects present, and guidance for further re-writes. As to implementation, usually it can be anyone, with a preference for the closer, but in controversial aspects like this, perhaps best to go for an uninvolved individual(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As someone that spends a sizeable amount of my time here helping out at ANRFC, the idea a precedent would be set where closers are in any way responsible for implementing or overseeing changes outside of admin action-required closes (like deletion discussions) seems very bad to me. Editors failing to follow WP:BRD (or in other words, seek consensus if their edits are getting reverted) in this case does not mean the closer needs to come in and supervise. Other dispute resolution processes are available, even if one would feel they're heavy-handed right after an RfC. Right now it seems like many supporters of the previous NSPORTS version before the RfC wish to re-litigate it, but I'm sure that's just the pain that comes with removing a band-aid rather than a serious concern that will continue over weeks. FOOTY seem to be coming around to a more constructive mindset, for example. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Involved in the RfC, mere IP user (obvs).) Strongly agree with the observation about setting a bad precedent. And a tremendously ad hoc one, too: I don't recall anyone suggesting ahead of time or even during the process that the closer would single-handedly have such a responsibility, and that anyone else doing so would constitute an entitlement to revert to the "last good version" (... that a community decision has just determined is not the "good version"). Or they'd be insulted on their talk page for their trouble. Or that a "panel" would be required to do such a thing. Or that any change needs a huge supermajority -- one not evinced in NSPORT's original adoption. I won't presume to know the motivations behind such actions, but their consequences seem highly unlikely to be constructive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I feel that User:Muboshgu was heavily involved, and should not have protected the page.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  S Marshall, pardon? How so? I have not commented on the RfC, I have not involved myself in that debate in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  • • I apologize wholeheartedly and retract that. I had you confused with someone else.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• On the question of creating new SSG guidance I feel like there needs to be an aggressive but reasonable timeframe put forth for the projects to put this in place - maybe April 15 or 30. To do this thoughtfully and based on data takes time and we are all volunteers so not like folks are putting in 40 hours a week on this. I also think we need to clarify up front what the approval process is for the new criteria. I would very much like to suggest that uninvolved editors be brought in to review any new proposed SSG criteria. As a mostly sports editor I am very willing to have non-sports folks evaluate the criteria but for many folks who were active in the discussion I can no longer assume good faith based on their words and actions in that RfC. That group should not have the "final say" on the SSG criteria - it is not a neutral body. To have input, of course, is reasonable. Rikster2 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with AGF and some users, then you should either A) read WP:ABF and get some fresh WP:TROUT from your favourite provider or B) add an "I" to WP:AN and open a thread there... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hey, if you come out of the blocks with an RfC titled "Abolish NSPORTS" (not "reform," or "substantially reduce" but "abolish), or if you restated your point and over 140 times at the RfC (just at that page, it was split out many times over many pages so the number is much higher), or if you spend the majority of your Wikipedia life at AfD and vote delete nearly every time (often with a demonstrated lack of WP:BEFORE), then you forfeited your right to be seen as an independent actor in this. I am not saying that sports project's proposals should not be reviewed. I am just saying that the folks who put so much effort into getting rid of the guidance shouldn't be the majority of the final arbiters of the new standards that are meant to truly reflect GNG. You guys are as biased as the permastub kings. I am just suggesting that knowledgeable, unaffiliated editors ought to play a big part in implementation if at all possible. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rikster2 you've linked JPL's stats (which, if I was ABFing like you, I would have to conclude was deliberate misdirection), and both you and him appear to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, to which I frankly wish to have no part in. Take it to the WP:CESSPIT if you wish to keep casting WP:ASPERSIONS about others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  At this point, I am just going to reiterate my request to have independent unaffiliated editors be the ones to sign off on any new SSG recommendations. This was a reasonable request and is a genuine area of concern for me and for others. I think it's pretty obvious why. Also, no misdirection. I linked what I intended to link. I didn't say those were your contributions, if that is what you are implying. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your request is moot since, if agreement on consensus cannot be reached, discussions will get closed by an uninvolved 3rd party. Having said that, you do give the impression of wanting non subject matter experts to assess and adjudicate on the proposals, bypassing wider community scrutiny involving those you have issues with, which simply isn't going to happen. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  You are being absurd as I have said nothing of the sort. What I am asking for is Wikipedia editors who understand notability and can gauge if an SSG meets it but who have not already expressed a depply held opinion that sports notability is "a problem" to be the decision-making body. I have a legitimate concern that I and others will put in a good amount of time and energy crafting new guidelines in good faith and if the audience that has to agree to it is 100% the same as the one who proposed "abolishing NSPORTS" (or voted to affirm that original recommendation) then that is pretty unfair - there should be fresh eyes on it. I have said (more than once if you care to read) that all should be able to comment. Rikster2 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Again, decisions are made by consensus, not "decision-making bodies"; closer(s) will only evaluate consensus, not any proposed criteria. If we have what you still appear to be requesting, we'd probably end up with another RFC proposing the abolition of NSPORT pretty rapidly. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  You were replying to me, and while my guess is that it was an innocent mistake/lack of clarity, it's still not a very productive kind of comment nor a good way to move things forward, if you argue that some editors are so biased as to be unable to provide a balanced take on things - again, this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's better if everyone is invited to take part in building a new compromise if the previous situation was not acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that action that really needs review is the locking of the page.North8000 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why? There were six experienced editors edit-warring on a policy page. Locking it was absolutely correct. I suppose the admin could have partial blocked them all, but then someone else might have come along and carried it on. Absolutely correct decision, and I would have done the same myself. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Another option, that's not a "pox on all your houses" option, would have been to warn the editors who were editing directly against an RfC result (reinstating content that the RfC said should have been removed). Someone also could have said something to the admin who edited against the RfC result and reinstated the content the RfC said should have been removed with the very specious and unfounded claim that an RfC result can only be implemented by someone who didn't vote in the RfC. Also, it's good you didn't protect the page since you voted in the RfC. Sometimes, when a bunch of experienced editors are edit warring, it's because half of them are wrong and being disruptive. Sometimes being a good admin means figuring that out and not using the tools in a blanket way. Levivich 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Levich, I agree that this wasn't a "both sides" thing, the problem was that editors were restoring the previous version against the RfC consensus. I've given warnings to the four editors who did this. I'm also surprised that the edit requests to implement subproposals #3 and #8 have gone unanswered as the close has not been overturned. –dlthewave ☎ 17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Being "right" is not an exemption from 3RR/EW per WP:3RRNO, so you should be warning all of them, or none of them. Also, you are completely involved, so shouldn't be warning them at all, especially in such a passive-aggressive way. I am unsurprised that some have kicked back against your warnings. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
        • As somebody who has been 'warned' by @Dlthewave: I must say I am positively quaking in my boots. Tbh I've never seen something so embarrassing in all my life. I'd expect some grovelling apologies to me and @BeanieFan11, Felixsv7, and Spike 'em: in the morning. GiantSnowman 21:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      What is the point of threatening to report people to ANI when the issue is already very much under discussion here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      • and, even if anybody had been naughty (and they haven't) what sanctions are there going to be 48 hours later?! This conduct from Dlthewave has served no purpose but to annoy people and enflame an already volatile situation. GiantSnowman 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
        • To answer your question, my concern is that editors might continue to restore the current non-consensus version after page protection expires. This discussion does not preclude implementing the consensus which was reached at the RfC; the closing statement stands until it is overturned or retracted. I'm also quite baffled by some of the process-related objections which are still being raised: When did it become policy or practice that an involved editor should not implement consensus changes or issue warnings; that a close should not be implemented if it's under review; or that editors implementing that consensus are just as disruptive as those who edit against it? ANI is the next step if this disruptive editing continues. –dlthewave ☎ 03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
          • So basically you are sharpening your tools to rush in with your non-consensus preferred version of NSPORTS when protection expires, even though an ongoing discussion on that guidelines Talk page doesn't support that course of action at this time? Am I understanding you correctly? You have heard of collaborative projects and norms, hey? Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Being right doesn't exempt Muboshgu from WP:INVOLVED either. He should not have protected the page. This is not a quibble or technicality but a bright line rule.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As I was not INVOLVED in the RfC, I don't see how protecting the page from an edit war violated any rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I apologize wholeheartedly and retract that. I had you confused with someone else.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I was not involved in the RfC, but was involved in the discussion about implementation of the RfC after I became aware of it. My concerns were, and are, that "rough consensus" of the editors who took part in the RfC clearly didn't translate into a meaningful consensus of interested editors, and that implementation of the decision was done disruptively and left the page nonsensical and useless, with fragments of old policies left stranded out of context and incomprehensible. When challenged, some of the editors who left this trail of destruction challenged those who objected to clean up the mess they had left. It was a clear example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Reprotect NSPORTS

NSPORTS is reprotected

It looks like the protection on WP:NSPORTS expired, and there's further attempts to edit NSPORTS without a closure of the discussion here. Can someone reprotect it until there's full consensus? Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Strong oppose - If anything, it is this version that should be protected. The RfC close stands until it is overturned, and subproposals 5 and 8 can be implemented immediately since there is no question of how they should be written or need for replacement text. I would note that subproposal 3, which is currently under discussion about how best to implement, has not been reinstated. Nfitz, please self-revert this edit which removes consensus content. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I'm simply going back to the previous frozen version from when the RfC close review started - as per WP:QUO. How is that version any different than this version which is from someone who is very much involved. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I agree with Nfitz. NSPORTS should be protected until this review is closed and there is a clear consensus on the remaining issues. There should be no rush to make changes to NSPORTS, regardless of how "unanimous" they seem. WP:NODEADLINE. Natg 19 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) There may be no deadline, but we're not going to talk about it forever, either. This RFC was open for two months. The implementation of the RFC is not subject to the consensus of NSPORTS editors. This RFC review is the last stop on this train. Unless the result is overturned, the RFC outcome will be implemented, without waiting for any further discussion. Local consensus will not overcome global consensus. This is our way. Levivich 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) That is indeed the way. But the way is also to wait. (though I doubt very much if this is the last stop! This has been simmering away for many years - and isn't the first RFC on the subject). Besides, the RFC was to delete NSPORTS - with umpteem follow-up proposals and severe bludgeoning, I really don't know how that RFC has any clear outcomes ... but as I'm involved, it is bad form for me to offer my opinion here. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Cmt Nfitz conveniently fails to mention here that the changes he's reverting have unanimous talk page consensus, reached after the first page protection, and are not themselves part of the current review. Since there is no non-procedural case against these particular changes, WP:NOTBURO applies here and the normal editorial process should be allowed to continue unimpeded. Avilich (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) How many editors even found that brief discussion? It's certainly not consensual. The discussion is at WP:AN - where, I note, involved editors shouldn't even be participating - something that you seem to have taken as an invitation to violate 44 minutes later. There is NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Nobody aside from you seems to think I violated anything by posting here. I did not even cast a formal endorse/overturn vote, just pointed out one of the contentions ahead of everyone else, which at least one uninvolved person took notice of and agreed with. That was my only substantive post before you started this edit war. Avilich (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Admin note I have partially blocked Nfitz for 36 hours for continuing to revert after I warned them about edit warring on NSPORTS. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Great, now can you restore the stable version? The changes he was reverting had been discussed on the talk page: the process was working exactly as intended after the first page protection, until he came along. Muboshgu effectively took his side again by locking the page in Nfitz's preferred revision. Avilich (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I agree that this limited change should be implemented as per sub-proposal 8. I also fully support the full-protection of NSPORTS to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Page protection is a reasonable response as well. Muboshgu and I just seem to have acted at the same time in different ways. I left a talk page message for them to try and work out next steps. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Can an uninvolved Admin please revert User:Wugapodes's blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED, and explain to them that they are very much involved with NSPORTS! Not that I have any intention of further editing the page for 24-hours given the 3RR bright line, which I never crossed. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Please post diffs of edits that Wugapodes has made that makes them involved with NSPORTS. Levivich 22:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Levivich I presume that Nfitz is referring to the fact that Wugapodes closed the actual RfC in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Yeah - not to mentioned opened this whole thing at AN. Here's some diffs that got caught in an edit conflict - One [58], two [59], [three https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability&diff=1076988647&oldid=1075707274] Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Those three diffs are "closing", the close, and revising the close. I was AGFing that closing the RFC wasn't what you were relying on to claim WP:INVOLVED, since that would clearly be exempted by the second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED. Also, the third paragraph exemption would apply, seeing as you re-re-reverted immediately after responding to an edit warring warning. In that situation, even an admin bot would have partially-blocked you, that's how clear it was. I see now you've asked "so how did I ask for protection first?", whereas your OP in this subsection was "...Can someone reprotect it until there's full consensus?", so we can all see that you asked for protection first, then made 3 2 more reverts, the third second coming after an edit warring warning that you were aware of. Did you think because you claimed "involved", you could re-re-revert and Wug wouldn't be able to block you? If so, you thought wrong. Your account is 16 years old; you've been indef'd and tban'd and otherwise sanctioned before; you know or should know the edit warring rules, and the INVOLVED rules, by now. Levivich 23:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) To be honest, I've never received an Admin warning for an "edit war" before - though Alex had a go at me once, - I haven't even looked at the policy for years. My impression was it was 3RR, but not necessarily 3RR for long-running or when people are gaming 3RR; which is why I'd have never have broken 3RR; perhaps policy has shifted over time (which is fine). Either way, time to move on. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Why is this even a big issue for you? You can't edit NSPORTS for 36 hours, which you can't even do since the page is now protected. Either way, the reasoning is straightforward: don't edit war or violate 3RR. I don't see that Wugapodes did anything wrong here. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) It's protected? Missed that ... all the more reason to revert the block. In the past, I've had nonsensical blocks ... which were then used against me much later. It's a reasonable request surely to have the reversion on the record. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) No, it was quite a correct block for edit-warring. FFS, even if you think the close for this particular point was wrong, that doesn't give you the right to revert to the former consensus and edit-war over it. The AN thread is right here, if you don't like that element of the close and want to challenge it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC) As I said, that's not what my understanding of edit warring is - but time to move on. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)  Done Muboshgu has protected the page for another 2 weeks: Special:Diff/1077172755. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Protecting the page to prevent edit warring is an easy stopgap, and of course anyone who edit wars should be warned or blocked, but it would be really helpful if admins could weigh in on which proposals have consensus and specifically admonish editors who go against it. There's also no reason not to implement this edit request immediately and I'm concerned that Muboshgu's "not done" response focuses on editor behavior instead of content. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Once again, being "right" is not an exemption from edit-warring per WP:3RRNO. The closing admin as asked for feedback above, I suggest it would be a better use of everyone's time to provide that. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Regard edit warring, the process is to discuss disputes, possibly go to an RFC, and if it's big to go to a large scale RFC and decide. Oh wait, we just did that.  :-) This implementation is (probably unprecedentedly) complicated and I think it's fine to play it safe and wait for the close review. But then editing against something that is clearly only an RFC implementation is a conduct issue regarding that person, not simple a 2 way edit war. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Well, I didn't think so - but consensus seems otherwise. Sorry for the disruption. Let's move on. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

IP Global Block Request

@Blablubbs: The IP range [60] you have blocked and now back during Block evasion on this IP and doing same edits see this [61] , Block this also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.123.75 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thomas the train 22's block

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.

---

ToBeFree blocked Thomas the train 22 because of only vandalizing. However, he only vandalized once. Is one edit enough to consider a block? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block) 22:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

They attempted to vandalize many many many times, so yes, the block is valid. Also, you're expected to discuss your concerns with the blocking admin before posting here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sometimes once is enough, depending on the type of vandalism they do. If someone spouts some nazi or racist crap in an article on their first edit...boom. indef blocked by me. Sometimes it is a sock but we don't want to give them credit. Boom, indef. Or as Ponyo showed, sometimes there is stuff you don't see, either deleted contribs, revdel, oversight or filter triggering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Look at the filter log - this edit alone tells you they’re not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• That escalated quickly! Faster than Thunder, Special:Diff/1077505294 should already contain all information you needed including a link to the relevant policy and the filter log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Possible COI editor removing information/username issue?

Resolved

Dennisprosus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed criticism from Prosus and its subsidiary OLX. Their edits have previously been reverted at Prosus by @Edwardx: who also observed a likely COI. Not sure if their username which includes the company name violates WP:USERNAME, in either case, COI, removing referenced information, etc. could use some scrutiny. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• PhilKnight has deftly handled the situation, no other action is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please hide

Contains obscenities and vulgar words Persia ☘ 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you requesting here? There's not a link to a diff. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there might be diffs here that could be obscenities and vulgar words. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't translate that way. Perhaps Persia is talking about something on the Persian wikipedia, to which we have no control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, Link--Persia ☘ 21:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, and indef blocked them. Most of that was hard to translate, there isn't exactly a literal translation, and Google Translate wasn't much help. I hate to get creative, and finally figured out what they were saying. I think I removed most of it from the history, someone was edit conflicting with me while I tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

vandalism and POV pushing on Azov Battalion

theres a ip that has made a ton of sockpuppets and he is constantly vandalizing the article, i ask for someone to make a sockpuppet investigations page or something and block the involved ips and accounts from editing, in addition, protect the page to prevent more vandalism. EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Azov Battalion has been semi-protected for 3 months by Deepfriedokra. As the article is related to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, it is also a logged arbitration enforcement action. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPI might not be a bad idea. Hopefully the SP will cut down the disruption. I should imagine there's some nationalistic propaganda going on, but I wouldn't want to try to sort it. I just WP:AGF hope for the best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

if anyone opens a SPI, feel free to ping me here and ill go there and provide some information/help to try and solve this. EpicWikiLad (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I see that went pear shaped in a hurry, no? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Supreme Deliciousness

Following an amendment request, the Arbitration Committee has resolved the following by motion:

Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Darkness Shines unban appeal (for discussion)

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.

---

Copied from User talk:Darkness Shines

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

It has now been four years since the community voted to ban me from Wikipedia. For the last two years I requested of the arbitration committee that I be allowed to edit again. However given it was Wikipedias editors who decided I had become a net negative, I believe it is those editors who I ought to need to appeal to. I fully admit to being short of temper, frequently drunk, and quite often profane to the extreme. But that was four years ago, and I have changed for the better. I no longer drink to excess . I am far calmer and not prone to losing my temper as I used to, perhaps because I drink far less, or maybe I've just gotten calmer with age. So I'm asking the community if they would allow me the privilege of editing again, should anyone have questions for me please feel free to post here. If someone would be so kind as to copy paste this to where a majority of editors will see it I'd be grateful. Thanks ¬¬¬¬

I have one, why is this so important to you? Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I enjoy editing and creating articles, it's that simple really. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

To expand on that, creating something that anyone in the world can access for free, well who wouldn't want to be allowed to do that? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(watching) It's certainly ironic, considering the number of editors we have whose very successful wiki-careers are built around everything but content creation. Hey ho. SN54129 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm biased. But, assuming that there aren't any red flags (socks), I'd support allowing DS to edit again. Agree that DS is aggressive and often (apologies, DS) sloppy in their haste to add content. But they have added a lot of useful content to Wikipedia and I consider DS a net positive. I should also mention DS's ability to identify nangparbat socks is unparalleled. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A Checkuser was recently run on my account, hilly Billy Holiday socked with a similar sounding username. I have no other accounts and have not edited since my ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is documented at Hillbillyholiday's SPI - it may read a little confusing, but I can confirm it's the case. I can also confirm, being somewhat familiar with the technical circumstances, that I have nothing to add from a checkuser perspective. In other words, it gets a tentative green light from me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• I generally prefer a formal probationary period for situations like this (where self control appears to be the issue) of something like 3 or 6 months. But I'd support without that as a second choice. The issue appears to be solely self control, and it's been ~4 years. Worth another try for someone with a strong content history IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Accept appeal and I'm willing to accept any probationary steps others think are appropriate. I remember DS vividly, as both an excellent defender of sources, and as a major pain in the ass. I'm glad he mentions drinking in the appeal, something some of us already knew was part of the problem. (but I wouldn't have mentioned it unless he had). If DS comes back and stays away from the extremes, he really is a big net plus. He has that potential. Whether or not he lives up to it, only time will tell, but it has been long enough that I feel we should give him a last, 2nd chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I really don't know where some people are getting this idea from that DS was somehow a potentially useful contributor with only a short temper being a problem. No, DS was never a useful contributor. His main problems were always incompetence and tendentiousness. He wasn't forever edit-warring because he had a short temper; he was forever edit-warring because he was always drawn into editing articles where he had a massive tendentious POV, didn't have the self-restraint to stop him from filling articles with poorly-digested, poorly-written and poorly understood tendentious POV fluff, and lacked the intellectual acumen to engage meaningfully on talk about these issues. Yes, he wrote a lot of content – a lot of uniformly bad content. He's the only editor I ever knew who managed to get himself topic-banned from at least three political hot-issue areas at once (Eastern Europe, India/Pakistan, and US politics); this didn't happen just because he used to swear a lot when drunk. A net positive? Ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Accept per WP:ROPE, and four years being a long time in Wikipedia. It's certainly long enough for people, and their circumstances, to change. If FP@S's venom is at all justified, then we'll all be back here soon enough. Most importantly of all, DS must know that too: if he has another chance, it'll only be the one. SN54129 08:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, the old "give them a last chance, re-blocks are cheap" mantra. No, re-blocks are never cheap, especially not with entrenched, experienced disruptors with wikifriends protecting them. This person has had dozens of second chances and last chances. He somehow managed to talk himself out of a block 12 times in 9 years. And every time he had to be re-blocked afterwards, it was a long-drawn-out, energy-draining procedure, devastating to all envolved. BTW, he now even denies [62] he was ever topic-banned from Eastern Europe. Yes, he was, under his "User:The Last Angry Man" sock account, in October 2011 (shortly after having talked himself out of the initial sock block for that one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(General reply to all) It wasn't much of a denial when in the same sentence they admitted to being t-banned from two other topic areas. I think we can allow a gill of good faith for a memory lapse over something that occurred a decade ago for three months. What I'm looking for is the possibility that someone can change in the amount of time that has passed (I doubt anyone would argue that, except the most incorrigible), and signs of recent disruption (socking). CU gives that a (tentative) all-clear, and I suppose NOTPUNITIVE means something. Admittedly I have the advantage of looking at this as something of a historical episode, not being personally invested, but I assure anyone who wants to know that, should DS go back to their old ways—or discover new ways!—of disruption, then I will be the first back here calling for reinstallation of the site ban. And one where their feet won't touch the ground. SN54129 10:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd like to see evidence of meaningful, constructive editing elsewhere (not necessarily a wikimedia project) before voting to support an unban. This user has been blocked before and convinced us they'd changed, only to demonstrate no significant improvement. Maybe this time, they really have, but there's nothing here that demonstrates that to me. --Yamla (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support unblock per WP:STANDARDOFFER. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support unblock, four years of patience and still willing to volunteer? Open the door wide for those who wait. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support only under a formally logged restriction that, for at least one year, the indefinite siteban will be immediately reinstated if they are blocked for any reason whatsoever. This user has been blocked, conditionally unblocked, and then re-blocked twelve times; the average time to the recidivism block is 44.08 days thanks to an outlier at nearly 6 months; in all but three of these cases they were re-blocked less than a month later, the shortest time being less than two days. This doesn't count numerous blocks that expired with no action, nor the block logs of the ten confirmed socks in their SPI. This is a user who has shown, repeatedly and consistently through time, that they know how to talk themselves out of consequences, that blocks don't teach them anything, and that they either fully intend to reoffend or they can't help themselves. I'm all for second chances (although we're well into double-digit numbers of chances here already) but let's not waste our time if they show, again, that they still can't follow the rules. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector:, I'm honestly struggling to understand how this restriction is supposed to be effective. The threat of, and actual implementation of, indefinite blocks/bans has previously proven to have little deterrent value in this editor's case. Are we really giving that much benefit of the doubt that this time it will work? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, I am concerned that such a "one strike and you're out again" rule would actually have the opposite effect, of effectively raising the bar for any sanction to be imposed. Given the long history of administrators bending over backwards to accommodate this person and of wikifriends protecting him, administrators might be even more reluctant to impose even just a short-term block if they knew that it would automatically trigger a permanent ban again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Eggishorn: well, the fact that previous sanctions have done little to deter this editor is the point of the restriction. They have a long record of not learning from restrictions and we don't have any way to be sure that this time in the penalty box will be any different from the other dozens of times. The restriction is just a relief valve: if we unblock them and they just get in trouble again, we don't need to have another lengthy discussion about what to do about it this time, we just reinstate the ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional support, per IV. I remember DS well, he was among the first prolific editors I encountered in my own time on Wikipedia. He was impatient, sometimes careless, profane, and bloody rude. Also, to anyone who knew him well, it was obvious that he believed deeply in Wikipedia's mission, and he drew his motivation from writing content. He stepped over the line often enough that I don't see this being a "last chance": but I think four years off the site is long-enough, given his particular offences, that we can seriously consider an appeal that identifies and promises to correct behavioral problems. He's going to be on a very tight leash as is: I believe he's still under an ARBIPA TBAN (right?) and I would additionally suggest, per IV, that any further issues with copyvios or sockpuppetry should lead to a reinstatement of the ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support also per IvanVector and Vanamonde93. It's possible that he has overcome the issues that led to his siteban, but I'm afraid I don't trust him enough to support him coming back without strict restrictions. I note that he doesn't discuss all of the issues that led to the siteban. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support under the terms outlined by Ivanvector. He has now stayed away from the project for almost half as long as he was ever active, and I don't think his failure to spell out why he kept being blocked is a sign of incorrigibility so much as the fact that he has already admitted to being an ass and not much else really needs to be said. I never have never encountered this editor or his contributions, so I cannot comment on the above question as to whether there was a fundamental content problem as well as a behavioral one; if there was, I hope that not being drunk will help with the quality of his edits as much as he claims it will help his behavior. Darkness Shines should understand, however, that if he is blocked again at any point in the nearish future, that block will be essentially permanent. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per FutPerf. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per FutPerf. I hate to say it, but the time for "one last chance" was past when the ban was implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The WP:STANDARDOFFER was expended long ago, they have had enough WP:ROPE to moor a battleship, and their content creation cannot offset a fundamental inability to cooperate. While I appreciate the intention behind Ivanvector's proposed restriction, I cannot support it. After looking through the history of blocks, bans, ANI threads, etc., I think that there will be lengthy discussions the next time that DS blows their top. There is copious evidence that such another incident is inevitable. I would like to believe their claims of growth but there is a years-long record of previous such claims not being borne out. If DS is able to show productive, civil editing for an extended period (six months or more) on a similar project, I would reconsider. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was probably a time where I would have been swayed by the appeals to personal growth, time served, right to an nth chance, etc. But that time is past, because I've seen over and over again how this community bends over backwards to rehabilitate endlessly problematic editors while denying even a scrap of empathy to the people whom they've harmed. We pat ourselves on the back for our graciousness, quote the-quality-of-mercy-is-not-strained and WP:ROPE, condemn as "venomous" anyone who objects to lifting sanctions... and then when these editors backslide, no one who's commenting here in favor of an nth chance will lift a finger. I'm no longer willing to participate in what increasingly strikes me as a cynical dynamic. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I note that I was the original proposer at WP:ANI in February 2018 of the current site ban. I was about to propose that Darkness Shines be asked to identify a niche area in which they would be allowed to edit to demonstrate that they had, in four years, learned how to edit collaboratively, or at least to avoid the worst. Then I reviewed their history again. I see not only the longest block log I have ever seen, which is mostly in 2011 to 2014, but also repeated episodes of sockpuppetry. As a result, I don't trust Darkness Shines, and I don't think that I will trust Darkness Shines in 2026. They may and do mean to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but they have demonstrated not only a lack of civility and a lack of discipline, but a lack of respect for the rules. As I said four years ago, Yuck. Ugh. I don't trust Darkness Shines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MastCell and FutPerf. This pattern stretches over years and does not inspire confidence. GAB^gab 00:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Accept appeal and unblock. Four years is a long time, and Darkness Shines has given a plausible explanation of why we can expect they will contribute more productively now than they did before. I know it's not guaranteed, and we've been burned before, but if we're not willing to accept their explanation then we might as well give up on the theory that indefinite does not mean infinite. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anyone who is thinking of supporting needs to first review Darkness Shines' block log, which contains three indefinite blocks (that is to say, Darkness Shines has successfully appealed an indefinite block in the past saying they've changed, exactly like this, and then gotten themselves blocked again, twice), as well as the discussion that led to the most recent block, their appeal to their previous block (which had an "it's been a long time, I have changed" tone similar to this one); the full text of the other time they successfully appealed an indefinite block is unavailable because it was via email, but the message here makes it clear they promised they had turned a new leaf and could be civil back then, too. The only rationale given here is "they may have changed", but note that in Darkness Shines' explanation for how they changed, they say almost nothing - they were not simply banned for being short of temper, frequently drunk, and quite often profane to the extreme. They were banned for continuous edit-warring and a sustained pattern of gross, repeated incivility across entire topic areas - something that goes way beyond the occasional loss of temper. --Aquillion (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, perhaps with the conditions mentioned above by Ivanvector. I'm certainly not saying that DS was ever a model editor (and nor is he, to be fair) but some of the attacks on DS above are slightly overblown, and at least one is exaggerated to the point of being economical with the truth. I don't see the downside of a WP:ROPE trial. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not thrilled with the idea of Darkness Shines' return. He's expensive in volunteer time.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I recall interacting once with Darkness Shines, whose action was (in my opinion) helpful for Wikipedia. I'd support a filter for foul language, but it should apply for everyone. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Looking through their edit history I have a hard time believing they would be a net positive should they return, and I place more importance on that than the length of time they've been blocked for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm all for extending some latitude for time served, but this was a community ban after 3 previous indefs, I don't think any more chances are going to change anything for the better. How many more hours are people supposed to waste on one editor when they have shown no interest in moderating their tone or editing behavours? Valeince (talk) 15:02, 14 March 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.

New sockpuppets

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 is somebody vandalizing on the disambiguation page Etha.

First name was User:Etha.one, now it's James818181. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:26, 20 March 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.

Action review: Geo Swan and imissdisco

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.

---

Background: [[63]]

• Geo Swan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• imissdisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Geo Swan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Today I noticed a back-and-forth between these two editors at Geo Swan's talk page. Per the background link above, evidently Geo Swan was blocked almost a year ago for creating an article about Dan Trotta while involved in a dispute at commons with imissdisco, which claims to be Trotta's account (I have no way of confirming this). About two weeks ago Geo Swan began posting a "plan for reinstatement" to their talk page. imissdisco, who has not edited this wiki except in relation to this dispute, began to challenge various things that Geo Swan was adding to their "plan", and their conversation became hostile.

Reviewing the talk page, I came across a diatribe in which Geo Swan threatened to ping the blocking admin daily until getting a satisfactory response. Admins are required to be accountable but there is no requirement to be publicly flogged until the offended party is satisfied, particularly in this case where the blocking admin's action was already discussed by the community (background link above). As such, I revoked Geo Swan's talk page and email access, standard practice for overt threats of harassment.

I also par-blocked imissdisco from Geo Swan's talk page, given their unreasonably aggressive tone and threats of their own, because the dispute at commons that started this whole thing seems to still be ongoing and is spilling over here again, and because Geo Swan won't be able to respond anyway.

I understand that the situation between these two editors is somewhat sensitive because the deleted page I won't link to was characterized as an attack page and because one of the parties is allegedly the target of that page (in other words it began with harassment) and so I'm requesting a review of the situation and my actions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cat o'nine tails for HJ Mitchell obviously. But, seriously, that looks fine ((Non-administrator comment)), obvs); notwithstanding Geo Swan's plan for reinstatement, I would say he was more likely to be heading towards a site ban than away from it. It's a shame imissdisco has to be blocked from the talk, but they have absolutely no reason to be editing it that I can see. Although if GS is also harassing her on other wikis (did I see her say that?), that makes her ire very understandable, although not something we can address on en-wp. SN54129 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. This looks like a reasonable response to an unpleasant and disruptive situation. --Jayron32 17:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Partial endorsement. I've been observing this for some time. It seems to me that imissdisco has been poking Geo Swan with a sharp stick. I am steering clear of the origfinal infraction. I consider, however, that all parties in a dispute are expected to conduct themselves with decorum. Perhaps the original issue was sufficient to cut the stick wielder some slack, but I wonder if the administrative action has gone far enough. My expectation is that, whatever the provocation they should avoid the talk page where they are poking with sticks. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• A clarification. HJ Mitchell is not the blocking admin. He gave a warning, and Drmies subsequently blocked. The block was overwhelmingly confirmed at a discussion here at AN [64]. Geo Swan seems to want to argue about the warning first, before requesting an unblock. I don't know if HJMitchell was even aware of the the posts: it doesn't seem required to watchlist a page almost a year after giving a warning, and the first actual ping was yesterday, I believe, though does it even work if you add a ping to previous text? In any case, Geo Swan continuing to argue that he was right, including ramping up the situation by asking for the undeletion of the contested picture at Commons (apparently in order to force Imissdisco to self-identify officially), seems very, very unlikely to convince editors to unblock him here. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A ping only causes a notification if you sign the same edit that you add it with. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo-blocknotificationslist and fill in a harasser's username, you won't see those pings no matter how often they're sent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Geo is incapable of collegiately editing, which is a shame because he has also provided good content. I don't know the IP, but agree with them in the request that Geo's response warranted further eyes, although I don't fault anyone in opting not to. Engagement with them is unnecessarily hostile, which is why I asked them not to email me. They had talk page access and did not need to resort to off wiki communications because they believe others need to be at their beck and call. Star Mississippi 18:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wait, Geo Swan is still writing about Trotta and still using the photo Trotta objected to elsewhere on the Internet as recently as this month? It seems like we're moving closer to Trust & Safety territory than an unblock. The summary Imissdisco posted at Geo Swan's talk page seems helpful. As he admits, he's not a Wikipedian and made the initial photo request without understanding how things work simply because he didn't like the photo. That's something we see every day. Yes, it can be annoying when you're oriented towards building a free knowledge resource and someone wants to remove an illustration just because they don't like it, but from the subject's standpoint it's completely reasonable. So when it wouldn't hurt much, or when there's something unusual about the case, we try to accommodate those requests. But Geo Swan went to great lengths to ensure it would never be deleted and, moreover, spread the photo to even more locations. It's wildly inappropriate, and I really don't see a way forward for Geo Swan without owning up to that, without pointing fingers, doing everything they can to undo the harassment, volunteering for a topic ban about Dan Trotta, and probably some other BLP restrictions. Given the current situation, I support the actions at the top. (And btw I'm not even saying the photo should've been deleted. It was two years old, was just a crop of a group photo that wouldn't have been deleted, and Commons errs on the side of preservation both due to its broad scope and to protect anyone who may have used that photo outside of Wikimedia projects and is counting on Commons documenting the license.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• I participated at GeoSwan's talk page, but my advice was not taken. As I wrote there, he's an amazing editor and I hope he can eventually get over himself and be allowed to return here. In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages, so I hope we can avoid ourselves doubling down here, and at least avoid removing that; he's not doing a very good job of advocating for his return, but he is trying. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages In the immediate aftermath of the block, yes. Not almost a year later.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm looking at the wrong deleted article, but the last deleted article of GS doesn't look like an attack to the naked eye. imissdisco did look like they were wholesale deleting sections they didn't like. What about it is attack? What am I missing? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It was created for the purpose of bothering the BLP subject, while the GeoSwan was actively arguing with and insulting the subject on Commons. GeoSwan said ahead of time that it would be a dick move to create the article, and did so anyway. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you. For what it is worth, the article itself was fairly benign. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Possibly, but blocks are for behavior and not content. The act of using the creation of an article as a weapon against another user is certainly a novel way to attack them, but it's still an unreasonable thing to do. --Jayron32 13:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• GeoSwan's behaviour over the last few days suggests they need a community ban, and certainly not unblocking at any point. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• I support any block or ban of Geo Swan that we have the power on en.wiki to implement or endorse. A year later, Geo Swan is still acting in an emotionally reactionary way, unable to control their temper in the way that I would expect a Wikipedian to be able to do were the incident something that happened yesterday, and making threats of harassment (to HJ Mitchell). They display no understanding of why they were blocked, and Imissdisco (whose comments are quite tame) alleges continued off-wiki harassment. Geo Swan says that they were drunk while committing harassment against Imissdisco, but that is a matter for more concern, not less. This is becoming a T&S matter, as Rhododendrites says.
  Lastly, while my condolences go to anybody who is experiencing grief, editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and we have precedent of not lifting blocks/bans that were issued after impulsive behaviour by a person experiencing serious negative life events due to the pandemic. The question here is "will this person be a net positive if unblocked?", not a question of fairness. — Bilorv (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Considering GeoSwan is using their Talk page to argue about the block, rather than attempting to appeal, I'd suggest revoking Talk page access & making them use UTRS. This obsession of his is getting out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support full-fledged site ban of Geo Swan, and I'd probably support a T&S ban too. I do not recall crossing paths with Geo Swan, but I do recall having a high opinion of his past work, and being shocked to find he'd been indef'd... and then disgusted after reading why. We must reject and act against any forms of harassment; Imissdisco does not deserve this treatment. If Geo Swan is still obsessing over this matter nearly a full year on from the imposition of his indefinite block, then I think we can safely say that he is no longer "here". --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban GeoSwan has been repeatedly counselled over many years for a range of BLP issues relating to their editing (e.g. creating negative articles on people for what appear to have been WP:COATRACK purposes, creating articles on non-notable people accused of terrorism, etc - see the various reports via [65], Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan and the list of articles they created which have since been deleted at [66] - most of the 708(!) are BLPs). As they are continuing problematic behaviour related to BLP while blocked for this, a ban is clearly in order given there appears to be no likelihood they will be ever adhere to the key BLP policy. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my original comment. SN54129 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• This action seems entirely appropriate to me. There have been problems with Geo Swan's editing, especially concerning BLPs, for a very long time. It should not be necessary to explain to an editor of GS's experience why weaponising Wikipedia in such a way is abhorrent, and that he still doesn't get it a year later shows that the block is clearly still necessary. His conduct on his talk page unfortunately necessitated the removal of his ability to edit that as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse admin action and support site-ban. I take a very dim view of using our internal processes to harass someone, regardless of good work that they did. Reminds me of Tenebrae, but arguably milder. Still, harassment is not to be tolerated. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban. We don't need an editor who seems to have spent a year seeking vengeance. I haven't researched their record as a content editor, but we don't need editors whose desire for revenge appears to be greater than their desire to contribute to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • He's one of the top 1000 editors of all time. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000. He specializes in the losing side of politics - for example he wrote a huge series of articles about the Guantanamo Bay detainees. His desire to contribute to the encyclopedia is quite strong. I hope the revenge thing was a one-time aberration, and he will promise to cut it out - though I admit he hasn't yet. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of talk page and email.
• Endorse partial block of imissdisco
• Support site ban of GeoSwan . A once great editor who continues to try to harass people. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Laments being blocked on Wikipedia, yet continues the same destructive behavior? While drunk? (what!) Classic lack of insight. Wikipedia is not therapy-- or AA. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  i cannot reach WikiAlpha. Is it me, or is it down? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Have a trout... ><((()))> Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Site-ban The fact that he is still doing this means that any unblock should have to be approved by the community. This is unacceptable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Support site ban, as I reported to several blocks, it does not accept the unblock requests and to approved to ban in the English Wikipedia. Maanshen (talk) 04:21, 16 March 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.

Polish-Lithuanian people by occupation

A month ago, a decision was made to move Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation and its subcategories to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation. The decision was based on the observation that Poland ceased to exist in 1569 when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created. This is a false statement, as the Commonwealth was a unionist state between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. So both states existed until the end of the 18th century. Besides, it is based on a narrow understanding of the concept of "nationality" as being inextricably linked with an existing state. In this understanding, in the 19th there was no people of Polish nationality, because Poland did not exist as a sovereign state. Moreover, the user Rathfelder who initiated the process referred to the article Polish-Lithuanian identity, not understanding its content, as this identity refers to the Lithuanians, citizens of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who adopted the Polish language and culture, and not to all inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I would ask the administrators to react and withdraw the changes made. I also ping @Piotrus: as he asked. Marcelus (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Move review. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Per the instructions in the last paragraph of the lead of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion - move review will only consider discusions related to renaming categories, and deletion review will consider discussions leading to deletion. I don't think we have a merge review process. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why I suggested move review, as the category was renamed LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 01:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus: If you think a category should be split then go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and follow the instructions on the page to start a discussion, however given that the discussion that lead to the merge was only a few weeks ago [67] you would need to address the comments made in that discussion and show why the decision to merge was wrong and/or not consistent with policy. I would also advise that you read the pages on what administrators on this site do and what their role entails (WP:Administrators is a good place to start). Admins do not get to act as "super editors", do not settle content disputes (like deciding what the definition of nationality is) and cannot unilaterally override the results of a consensus built at a formal discussion venue (nor can any other editor on this site for that matter), no admin is just going to revert the merge without discussion as you ask. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Call for experienced closer at RfC: Skeptical Inquirer

Could an uninvolved editor with experience in contentious closes please close Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer, either with an immediate snow close or ^{(apparently the word "either" was too confusing...)} after the usual 30 days?

The last substantive comment was four days ago on 10 March 2022 and further discussion is unlikely to change the result.

I am asking for a experienced closer for several reasons:

First, emotions are high on this one, and it is likely that whichever way it closes there will be accusations that it was closed with a WP:SUPERVOTE.

Second, there are open questions regarding wikipedia policy; can a source be biased yet still be generally reliable for supporting statements of fact? Is scientific skepticism Wikipedia's "house bias" as I contend in my essay at WP:YWAB?

Third, Arbcom published a FoF (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source) on what the current consensus was at the time based upon RSNB discussions from before this RfC. If the result of this RfC does not match the FoF IMO the closing should explicitly discuss which of the two is authoritative and whether an additional decision at WP:ARCA to bring the two into alignment is needed.

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Any consensus at the RfC would be considered authoritative, Guy Macon Alternate Account, as the FoF explicitly states "There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability." A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've also opened a request at WP:RFCL, though I think we can let it run the full month.

Second, there are open questions regarding wikipedia policy; can a source be biased yet still be generally reliable for supporting statements of fact? Is scientific skepticism Wikipedia's "house bias" as I contend in my essay at WP:YWAB? - the closer can't answer those questions. The first they might address in their close, based on the weight of arguments presented, but for the second you would need an RFC proposing to implement a "house bias".

Regarding the FoF, I believe Barkeep49 already addressed that question: The FoF is true. When this case closes there will be no community consensus on its general reliability. However you are obviously correct that there's a reasonable chance it would become quickly outdated if the RfC finds consensus other than "no consensus" and so I have added a sentence noting that RfC for people who read this case in the future. In other words, the RFC consensus applies, not the FoF. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The FoF reflected community consensus at that moment. As consensus can change there's no tension if a consensus is found now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Also I guess I should underscore that ArbCom was not making a decision about the reliability of the Skeptical Inquirer. Such a decision would be outside its scope. ArbCom was instead stating what the current thinking in the community was. After this RfC the thinking will have evolved in some way which is fine - the decision is meant to be true at that point in time and not a living document. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Related: Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure why folks keep requesting closes here, when there exists a venue specifically for requesting closes. Also, there's no rush to close the discussion, might as well let it run the full time. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm still mulling over the arguments, as well as looking through how the source is actually used on-wiki, but I (who opened the RfC) intend to make a !vote before it's over. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• There is no rush to close it. Just let editors participate and, when the RfC tag is removed, someone will come along and close it. Isabelle ^🔔 16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know why everyone is assuming I asked for an immediate close when I made it clear that I don't care whether it runs 30 days or not, but "someone will come along and close it" is pretty much guaranteed to result in a huge shitstorm. I know a contentious RfC that needs an experienced closer when I see one. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) This is still not the proper noticeboard to request such a close, Guy Macon Alternate Account. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Please cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that closure requests may only be made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I searched and could not find any such rule.

    Sometimes it is more convenient to simply post a call for close in the discussion section of the RfC. I often do this when WP:SNOW clearly calls for an early close ^{(Note: saying that you are OK with an early close or a full 30 days is not the same thing as calling for an early close.)} but I can't do it myself because I am involved.

    Sometimes WP:CR is the obvious right place to request a close, such as cases where the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear but pretty much any uninvolved closer should be able to close it without causing any further drama.

    Sometimes, as is true in this case, you can look at the discussion and see the coming shitstorm from editors who didn't get their way and you need a closer with experience in contentious closes, not just the random closer you get at WP:CR. Usually this means an admin, but some veteran editors are experienced in contentious closes and can do the job. AN is a good place for this sort of request.

    There are rare cases where a team of closers is needed. An example would be the Daily Mail RfC.

    And of course many discussion don't need a closer at all. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Guy Macon: In your opening statement here you mention the discussion could be closed right now per WP:SNOW, which gives the appearance of wanting an early close. Although the discussed had died down (of course posting about it in a such visible place would of course lead to it receiving more comments), a close before the recommended 30 days seems counter-productive if the topic is controversial or the close is likely to be challenged, which it appears you believe to be, as you are asking for an experienced editor and/or administrator. I hope that answers your question about why people seem to think this is a request for an immediate close, and why some (well, me at least) are recommending we wait. Isabelle ^🔔 19:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Supporting Guy's request for an experienced, uninvolved editor (preferably an admin due to the Arbcom/policy linkages) to close the RfC. Sooner, later, whenever. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

*(Non-administrator comment) Too early. The last two votes (mine included) were made today, and there is a notable absence of editors with fresh eyes on this. It should probably be extended into other RfC category pools to get more editors with no prior history with the topic. And the unwieldy discussion section should be collapsed so it's more clear where to comment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have formally non-closed the closure request. Wait until the 30 days run and the bot pulls the thingy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We are now two weeks away from the 30 day close. There are still major problems that need an experienced closer to evaluate. Examples include:

• WP:BIASED says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but multiple !votes amount to "SI is biased so it must be unreliable". These need to be evaluated to see if they conform to Wikipedia policies.
• At WP:ARBSCE, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#GSoW training: contents found (Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions) that "Trainees are given outlines of Wikipedia's core content policies and encouraged to explore project-space on their own" and Arbcom did not place any special restrictions on GSoW members, yet at least one participant in the RfC has repeatedly claimed that GSoW members are not allowed to comment on the RfC (with no evidence that the editor being targeted actually is a GSoW member other than them being a new editor!).

Again I ask, will an uninvolved closer with experience in contentious closes please volunteer to close this after 30 days? Emotions are high on this one and I know an upcoming shitstorm when I see one on the horizon. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with your revert of the close of this thread. [68] This thread is serving no purpose. Everyone who is going to read your request has already read it, and anyway, you're more likely to find an experienced closer by posting at CR instead of here. CR, not AN, is where closers look for things to close. On top of all that, the RfC is not yet ready to be closed as new votes are still coming in. I don't see how repeatedly posting here is helpful in any way. Levivich 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

yet at least one participant in the RfC has repeatedly claimed that GSoW members are not allowed to comment on the RfC If you are referring to the discussion between @BilledMammal and Ebergerz:, started here, this is a misrepresentation of what has been said. What BilledMammal has very clearly expressed is a concern that Ebergerz has been stealth canvassed to the discussion, and not a general moratorium on contributions from GSoW editors as a whole. I'll be happy to strike this comment if you are instead referring to something else however, so I'd appreciate it if you could please clarify. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As I've been mentioned here I'll try to help clarifying it a little. While it may be a little more nuanced that what Guy expressed, in the end it amounts to almost the same thing: By BilledMammals reasoning any user who is new to the formal discussions and he judges to be part of GSoW has to be by default canvassed and would seem that there is no chance that said user could have a legitimate interest in the discussion. So, if a user is new to this discussions (myself in this case) is not judged to be part of GSoW, then there is no reason to believe they are canvassed by GSoW, but if they are judged to be part of GSoW, then immediately the conclusion is that they have been canvassed. Seems a bit circular to me. In the end it would simply be the same thing Guy said but with a qualifier: GSoW members who have not done so before are not allowed to comment on the RfC. Additionally, I'd like to mention that while I may be new to formal discussions in EN WP, I'm by no means new to WP itself, my editing record in SP WP is pretty consistent, though admittedly most of my editing is in main space. Ebergerz (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BilledMammal. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Persia

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 found that the username User:Persia is against the Wikipedia:Username policy because persia is another name Country Iran and was used for centuries until it was changed in 1935 at the request of Reza Shah.see Persia (disambiguation) .This name is controversial and can not be used as a username by wikipedia users. There are many examples of these similarities on the wiki that are prohibited. Please follow this issue so that the user can change his username. Yours sincerely. 85.185.57.231 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 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.

MustafaO unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, MustafaO (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § MustafaO unblocked

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting period will close 23:59 UTC on 21 March 2022

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct will conclude on 21 March 2022 at 23:59:59 UTC.

I shared some voter turnout data here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote (as of 20 March).

Please share the information links with interested users: Project Overview • Universal Code of Conduct • Enforcement guidelines (proposed) • Voting • Voter information

The poll can be accessed via w:en:Special:SecurePoll/vote/802 or m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, we're doing it again already? My comment attached to my No vote this time was: If at first you don't succeed... For the next revision/vote, maybe clarify what the revised changes consist of...? Just a thought. Once again, I helped! Or, wait, is this the same vote as before? Because if so, I just double voted successfully. And there wasn't even a ravine in sight! So scared, still. El_C 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C this is the same vote. And like with Arbcom votes only your most recent vote will be counted. When you voted a second time the first vote was invalidated. So if you left other feedback then you should vote a third time so that feedback is what is considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I_C, weird. I never tried voting twice on an ArbCom vote before, so I didn't know that was possible. Thanks for clearing it up! El_C 18:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I always vote as many times as possible. I collect those really useful receipts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You could make a Collage! El_C 18:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask, is there any possible use case for those receipts? One is reminded of the late, great Mitch Hedberg and his infamous donut joke. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD really needs to be closed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windmills in the Channel Islands has been relisted a second time. WP:ATTREQ is not something that can be ignored. Whilst I sympathise with the arguments for deletion, it cannot happen. Would someone please close this? Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this could, in fact, have been deleted. Despite Mjroots' adamant bold type on the matter, in fact a list of contributors could have been inserted in an edit summary (for example). It looks to me as if the AfD participants were given the wrong directions.—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There were 15 contributors before the splitting of the article, I can not reasonably see how they could be attributed in a meaningful way, and there was nothing even close to the consensus for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of them are bots but more importantly there is no requirement for attribution in a "meaningful way". The only requirement is for a list of contributors. This could be via an edit summary or as a list in the target articles. WP:ATTREQ makes it clear that both are acceptable albeit not preferred. The simplest solution IMO if editors really feel the current title is useless is probably to move the page somewhere else then properly annotated the relevant article histories to make it clear where the attribution has gone. If necessary, it could be made a subpage of one of the split targets or something else. Frankly I'm doubtful it's necessary to preserve the history after 2013-04-01 anyway, so the history could even be merged with Windmills in Jersey or List of windmills in Guernsey and the relevant other articles could be properly annotated. Personally it doesn't seem worth the effort, the article title isn't that bad, something meaningful can surely be done with it but I agree with S Marshall the idea we have to keep it at that exact title for attribution reasons isn't correct. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't HAVE TO redirect this, but why on Earth not, as it's the easiest path and doesn't harm the encyclopedia in any way? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

To add onto Nil Einne's comment, I wrote WP:Attribution does not require blame as an essay recently. I skimmed the article's pre-2013 history and found only one non-Mjroots edit containing significant creative content: diff, by Man vyi. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots, your various comments invoking WP:ATTREQ and claiming that deletion is therefore prohibited are not an accurate interpretation of the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. Proper attribution (shortcut WP:PATT), a few sections later, is clear that a List of authors is sufficient. Reusing deleted material (shortcut WP:RUD) is also relevant. WP:Merge and delete (supplement) describes possible approaches for this rare situation. I intend to create WT:Articles for deletion/Windmills in the Channel Islands with a note to prevent future readers from being misled. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Flatscan. The attribution requirement does not prevent us from taking the editorial decision to delete an article. In such cases, attribution can be provided in an alternative manner, as discussed above. I note that the attribution requirement is in actual practice seldom met because nobody has enough time to disentangle thousands of contributions in the history of an article with tens of thousands of edits and dozens of mergers to be able to determine who wrote a specific phrase, but we do not worry overmuch about this problem either. Sandstein 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, attribution is required by the license and must be taken seriously. Many pages are properly attributed: as a very rough proxy estimate, {{Copied}} is transcluded on nearly 17,000 pages. Regarding who wrote a specific phrase, "blame" is not required, as mentioned above. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandstein Attribution is not disentangl[ing] thousands of contributions in the history of an article with tens of thousands of edits and dozens of mergers to be able to determine who wrote a specific phrase as you put it; it is as simple as "Content was copied from Foo, see that page for attributions" and it's fairly miffing to me as someone who puts in the time and effort to hunt down the results of people not caring. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyright action review

Today I came across Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, which since 2018 has included a full reproduction of the creatively-selected copyrighted list (see WP:TOP100). I removed it, and then revdeleted almost the entire contribution history of the article. This seemed obvious to me at the time but I'm having second thoughts. Review please? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you can copyright a list of facts, but this is a little more, in that they made the decision to rank them. Still, once they have done this, it is just a list of facts, not prose. No expert here, but I can't help but think the list is ok. What is copyrighted is the prose and format they presented the list in. We have a lot of these articles, like where Barron's magazine might list the 10 most successful companies, etc. and we reprint the list, sourcing it back to them. A good example is List of most valuable brands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector and Dennis Brown: The relevant help page here is Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Something like a list of companies by value is not copyrightable as it contains nothing except simple facts sorted into ascending order, whereas something like a list of the "greatest artists of all time" would be protected by copyright since its production involved a significant amount of creative expression, it being based entirely off the opinions of the author. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, mysterious stranger. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  An example of a comparable fact-based list is List of best-selling music artists. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support both removal and revision deletion. While over 200 revisions across 2 years were hidden, not much was changed during that period. A removal last month with an explanatory edit summary was reverted within a few hours. A recent discussion, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh, had a range of opinions on acceptable RD1 use. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think that's the right move, Ivan. I removed a similar list a couple months ago and Moneytrees revdel'd it. Discussion at User_talk:Moneytrees/Archive_23#Please_review_potential_copyvio. Levivich 04:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Right choice as others have said. Gosh, when I think of "Copyright in lists" that's one of my first choices for an obvious "yes, that's copyrighted". Sennecaster (Chat) 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Quarterly Community Safety survey

Apologies for cross-posting this, I wanted to make sure that as many people as possible know this is going to happen, so people aren't surprised when it appears.

Starting the week of 28 March 2022, the Wikimedia Foundation will conduct a quarterly anonymous survey about safety perceptions among the English Wikipedia community members.

This survey responds to a Universal Code of Conduct community recommendation, and we encourage you to participate.

There are more details about the survey on the project page, and you can also leave comments.

Best regards, Community Safety Survey team –– STei (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Information critical of war on Ukraine is being actively deleted on Russian wikipedia pages.

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.

---

Someone who understands Russian language and the situation in Ukraine needs to double-check the history of https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Где_вы_были_восемь_лет? for vandalism and deletion of information that is objectively correct. It seems like some pro Russian editors are just removing what they do not like. Thanks for your attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:3710:5900:F57B:E0D6:B146:7CA0 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We can do nothing with how the Russian Wikipedia operates. Unfortunately, each site is it's own entity, and here, we can only monitor what is edited on the English Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, at a glance through Google Translate, that article seems to be more complete (and contains more details criticizing the war or the propaganda phrase in question) than our article on the same subject, Where have you been for eight years? - not surprising given that most of the best sources are likely to be in Russian. --Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 22 March 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.

Continuously making dubious changes by an IP

The ip 122.162.148.195 is continuously making dubious changes without any source on Battle of Maonda and Mandholi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, please use WP:RFPP instead of this page for such reports. It is better designed to handle them. --Jayron32 12:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Koavf: review

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

---

Hi. I apologize if i'm anonymous, but I need to review the block on Koavf (talk · contribs). He's a trusted person. He made over 2.1 million edits. He needs to be unblocked. I recommend that Koavf only needs a soft/temporary block. I also recommend that Koavf agrees to policies within Wikipedia and learn to seek consensus and not edit war again. Please unblock him. Thanks. --2601:647:6516:BCA:D65:1FB2:A290:40CD (talk) 22:51, 2

Unfortunately, the current consensus/operating mode of AN is that Koavf will have to request an unblock directly. This allows us to know their reasons for wanting to return to active editing and ask them questions about their past actions. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Third party requests are not accepted. How did you come to be aware of this block, why are you advocating for them, and why do they not advocate for themselves? 331dot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 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.