Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	6	8
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 14 sockpuppet investigations
• 7 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 33 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 13 requested closures
• 64 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 8 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (47 out of 8846 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:189.219.66.135 2024-11-15 00:16 2024-12-15 00:16 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Malayalam 2024-11-14 23:13 2024-12-14 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case 2024 Ramyah clashes 2024-11-14 23:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vietnamese irredentism 2024-11-14 22:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Matal (2018 film) 2024-11-14 20:25 indefinite create Restore salt Pppery Vettaiyan 2024-11-14 18:55 2025-08-19 20:25 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Template:No significant coverage (sports) 2024-11-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II FRVR 2024-11-14 15:27 2024-12-14 15:27 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Queen of Hearts Operation Cast Thy Bread 2024-11-14 14:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

• Discussion: WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
• Close: [1]
• Closer: Cinderella157
• Discussion of the close: WP:Village pump (policy)#Post closure discussion
• Closer notified of this review: [2]

I have not been involved in this issue, other than responding to the RFC. I rarely touch categories, and I don't much care what the final outcome is here. However I strongly object to canvassing, and I very much dislike bad closures.

Grounds for overturn:

• A closer's job is to assess community consensus and apply policies and guidelines. The closer acknowledges that they did not even attempt to do so in their closing statement and in the post closure discussion. The simply disregarded WP:Canvassing, and they blindly assessed consensus of the canvassed participants in front of them. I believe a reasonable closer could have accounted for the canvassing. If a closer finds that canvassing has irredeemably corrupted the process, they can void the discussion. They can direct that the RFC restart from scratch. It is within reasonable discretion for a closer to be unable to resolve a case of gross canvassing, however it is not within discretion to willfully ignore gross canvassing.
• I fully agree that a closer can disregard votecount and close on the basis of policy, or close on the basis of weight of argument. I have personally closed a 20 vs 10 RFC in favor of the 10. However a policy based close needs to cite a solid policy basis, and a "weight of argument" close needs to cite a solid and respectable explanation. One of my main goals when closing is to ensure that the "losing side" receives a rationale which they can (unhappily) respect. We do not have that here. The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for "The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences". Huh? I don't recall ever seeing such a strange or hollow basis for closure. I am also puzzled how that has clear overriding weight against concerns of disruption-of-work.
• (edit: This is a supporting/explanatory factor, not a fundamental basis for overturn:) The closer has an unusually strong personal minority-bias on the language issue. A causal inspection of their usertalk reveals an exceptional personal inclination towards 's' over 'z'. In fact Google reports that "winterised" (with an s) is a borderline-fringe usage by 6.8% of the world. This evident personal bias, combined with a disregard for the blatant canvassing issue, combined with the fluffy-puffy "embrace our differences" rationale, creates an overriding impression of a Supervote.

I'm fine with however this ends up. But this close erodes confidence in our system of closures. Can we please get something respectable? A respectable outcome if possible, or a costly repeat-RFC if necessary. Alsee (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary information: This is the state of the RFC at the time of canvassing. It had been closed as The proposal has gained consensus to pass. The RFC was reopened and hit with a surge of opposes after the canvassing. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the merits of the debate itself (fwiw, I supported standardisation) but I am really uncomfortable with the last objection here. When the question is a binary "do A or do B", everyone is going to look like a partisan if you approach it with this mindset. If you're going to challenge the closer for their use of a language variant, when they've expressed no opinion on the matter, who would be allowed to close the next one? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Gray I wouldn't have looked at their personal inclination, if not for the first two points. The first two points establish the problem with the close. I said that the third point combined with the first two create an overriding impression of a supervote. I consider it a supportive/explanatory factor. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather strange closing statement but from a brief look I'm not seeing a consensus for much in that discussion. The discussion did establish that the relevant policies/guidelines can be read as supporting either option, and that opinion on the subject is pretty divided. That largely takes care of the main reasons for closing either way. Given that all English speakers use one of the two variants exclusively, every single possible closer would have the "bias" that's being claimed here. Hut 8.5 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The close needs to be re-done--it was an atrocious, wandering, closing statement that didn't actually summarize the discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have rarely seen a clearer case of no consensus than that discussion. Opinions are hopelessly split, everyone is talking across each other, no solid arguments made to persuade anyone. Seems like a solid close to me,and one that needed to be made because it looks like the whole thing was a huge time drain. Wikipedia's ENGVAR split is always going to be a somewhat tricky issue, but by and large we get through it without dispute. Suggest people drop the stick and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, 3-to-1 support isn't usually considered a clear case of no consensus. Especially when opposes give no rationale that their position is in any way superior.
    (For those who missed my point, my reference to 3-to-1 support is before the RFC was re-opened and one disruptive individual selectively canvassed 11 wikiprojects to manufacture a surge of opposes.) Alsee (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're going to make accusations of disruption, at least have the decency to notify me. As for the accusation of "selective canvassing", this was a proposal to mandate that an English word had to be spelt in a way different to that used in several countries or regions. Therefore it seems eminently reasonable that editors from those countries or regions should be alerted to a discussion that would specifically affect them with a neutral notification (there was little or no point in posting it to American/Canadian etc WikiProjects as the proposal would not affect their categories. I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change. Number 57 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have responded in part to Alsee (the OP of this thread) in the post-close discussion here.

• I have not "ignored" the matter of VOTESTACKING.
• I have found "no consensus" (as distinct from "consensus against"). I am happy to amend if this needs to be made clearer. It is similar to the outcome of directing that the RfC start from scratch - an outcome acceptable to Alsee? If this represents the substantive reason for contesting the close, then I suggest there is "no reason".
• The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences ≠ The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for ... - particularly in the context of a "no consensus" close. WP:5P5 identifies "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". I am not invoking WP:IAR. The principle of ENGVAR etc is to "embrace our differences", rather than argue about them when they are if little consequence (to understanding). COMMONALITY applies where understanding may be compromised. The former is therefore more compelling, since this here, is not a matter of "understanding". This is a matter of identifying the underpinning principles of policy and guidelines (as I believe the OP has implored me to do) since the guidelines cited do not specifically address the issue. However, in the circumstances, this was an observation of the discussion and not a finding of "consensus".
• If I was brief in my close, and subsequently unclear, I apologise to the extent that the close template is a restriction. I believe it is reasonable to seek clarification of a close. I have responded to clarify. However, it is not appropriate to assume "bad faith", to misrepresent matters or to be uncivil in the process (see post close comments).
• I think that Amakuru's comments are particularly pertinent.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend starting the RFC from scratch, at least not now. No consensus is a valid close of any discussion, and it means that at this time there is no agreement, and often a fair bit of dispute too. The result of such a discussion is to retain the status quo, whatever that is, and move on. Restarting is likely to just see the same participants come back and make the same points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the views of the proposer @BrownHairedGirl: would be of interest. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close was exceptionally poor and fluffy, and gives no appearance of even attempting to actually weight the discsussion in light of the votestacking.

It is utterly disgraceful that Number 57 continues to deny that they engaged in votestacking. After numerous expalanations by numerous editors at several venues, Number 57 still has the gall to say I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change.

It's very simple:

1. Number 57 engaged in blatant votestacking by notifying only sets of editors who he considered most likely to agree with his view. Categories relating to neatly all countries may be renamed by this proposal, and editors from all countries may have views on this, but Number 57 chose to notify only those who he believed would support his view.
2. This was done stealthily, without any notification to the RFC that the notifications have been made.

Number 57 has been admin for nearly 12 years, and a prolific contributor (over 190K edits). He has participated in enough discussions over the years to know exactly what he was doing here, so the despicable manipulativeness of his conduct has no defence of ignorance or error. Any remaining shred of good faith I might assume in N57's conduct has been destroyed by his vile attempt to claim that objections are a case of sour grapes. This doubling-down on his highly disruptive misconduct makes Number 57 completely fit to be an editor, let alone an admin. If I have the time and energy to pursue the case for a desysopping of Number 57, I will do so ... and i will do it with great sadness, because I previously had high regard for Number 57's work.

The whole process of consensus-formation breaks if an editor (and esp a highly-experienced admin) betrays the community's trust in this way. Regardless of whether the community proceeds to give Number 57 a well-deserved desysopping and/or CBAN, the result of that duplicity should not stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I won't be endorsing the close, but I came here after BrownHairedGirl pinged me in a separate but related discussion mentioning Number 57, which confused me, so I followed the breadcrumbs back up the trail and came here. I have no idea how I stumbled upon that RfC, whether I was "canvassed" there, but I think it's an assumption of bad faith to assume Number 57 votestacked. I don't see any problem with notifying users of non-American English about this RfC, since it would disproportionately impact them. Those voting from non-zed using countries were not persuaded to vote in any way by Number 57, and the suggestion Number 57 changed the outcome of the discussion by notifying users tells me there wasn't going to be consensus for this anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, and I'll ping User:Number 57 - the reason this is blatant ing is because of selective and targeted notification. 57 selectively notified only those who were predictably more inclined to view the proposal unfavorably, while deliberately not notifying others who would also be impacted by the proposal, and who would clearly be more likely to view the proposal as beneficial to their work. If 57 is unwilling or unable to understand that many people would benefit from the proposal, if they are unwilling or unable to understand that it is Canvassing to selectively notify likely-allies, then I am concerned that it may be necessary to look for any past or future pattern of canvassing. We generally let individual instances of canvassing off with a warning, but I believe 57 is experienced enough to know better. I believe any pattern of canvassing would be grounds for a topic ban against publicizing any RFC anywhere, to prevent future disruption caused by similar problems understanding or applying appropriate notification vs inappropriate notification. Alsee (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I still disagree, and I think you proved your point here - you're assuming "many people would benefit from the proposal," but there's clearly a large group of people who oppose, and they are the very people who are disproportionately impacted by the change. I think this is the one which I was shocked to see it was closed in favour of standardisation, since it's a big change and one that goes against our current rules. Plus, we're both biased. The three users who have chimed in who weren't involved have either said there's no consensus anyways, or the close should be overturned on purely procedural grounds, but King O'Malley lived a long time ago and I would be shocked if you got support even if arguendo all projects had been notified "equally". SportingFlyer T·C 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn - given that Australia/New Zealand seem to be particularly and vehemently opposed to 'ize' (all from Aus/NZ opposed, mostly post-canvas), I expected that an Australian would rule themselves out as a potential closer (User:Cinderella157 claims to be from Queensland). There was a glut of 'opposes' immediately after Number 57 votestacked, several listed under the members list for Wikproject Aus. Either one notifies all Wikiprojects, or none. Oculi (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Note: the closer, Cinderella157, has now been blocked for violating an ArbCom topic ban from World War II. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cinderella157. Sandstein 21:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Lourdes's original close per Oculi and BHG's reasoning above. Lourdes's first close was a correct assessment of consensus. The subsequent unclose-plus-canvassing/votestacking was disappointing. The second close was more or less a punt. Not sure what the best way forward is; perhaps just restore Lourdes's original close. (non-admin, voted z in RfC) – Levivich 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse per Amakuru. Sure, the closing statement could have been worded better, but I can't see how this could have been closed as anything other than no consensus. Iffy★Chat -- 16:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse as per Amakuru and Iffy. I came from the Village Pump to see what the outcome of the discussion was. I think the topic is so divisive that there is no option but to state that there is 'no consensus'. I note the accusations of vote stacking, but if this is the case, the accusations should be brought to a formal process. A further point is that if there was "vote stacking" to people opposed to the proposal, could it not be argued that the original discussion was perhaps also "selectively canvassed" to people who were biased towards the proposal? This suggests that any request for discussion was not properly signposted to the people / teams / communities that would be affected: I am not sure that I can support the original close on this basis. I also don't think it's a wise idea to set precedent as someone had suggested on the original page to ignore the objections. I again state that I think going with "no consensus" is the best idea with this topic where it will be difficult to get agreement. Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. I voted in that RfC in support of the change, but a few things in the process really don't sit well with me. First, I agree that there was a very one-sided notification post original closure. Not understanding why that can stack votes to one side is pretty astonishing. Since this isn't a "lets decide for Australia what goes in an Australia article", but a "How does en.wiki handle a category style", either you notify everyone, or no one. The other 75% of the community has the same rights and same vote weight as do the other 25%. Another issue I have it with the actual close. What the hell did all those words even say? Perhaps this might be done in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories (CREEP to avoid CREEP - irony) - a more formal way than an RfC? Can this even get any more evasive? Also, if you don't care to investigate allegations of vote stacking, then maybe closing RfCs isn't for you. I expect someone that closes any discussions to check any allegation brought up, understand guidelines and not cite an essay in their close, which itself has no place even in the discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus per Amakuru. The truth is no one wanted to close this RfC and it effectively sat dormant for a month (after another had started a close but decided against exposing themselves by doing so) before Cinderella had the courage to do the job. On a side note, I find Alsee’s third argument above particularly galling, their bias against anyone who does not use American spelling is clear, declaring Cinderella incapable of making an impartial decision for spelling a word (that is completely unrelated to this RFC) in a way that they do not consider correct. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC).

• Overturn, with no prejudice against either Cinderella157 or Number 57. Cinderella claims not to have considered canvassing at all, and despite this being an important part of a closer's responsibilities, they appear to suggest that doing so effectively is not possible (bullet point #2). Their responses are also hostile to the idea of a challenge, which suggests a lack of neutrality - as seen in bullet point #3 from the same diff, which appears to claim that either Alsee's challenge or those who supported the proposal are involved in "vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions. I'm not sure that Number 57 was necessarily wrong given their stated reasoning, but the allegations still need to be accounted for. As always, reclosing could very well produce the same outcome, but the existing close does not meet the expected standards. Sunrise (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn, though I agree that there is no consensus, the RFC should have lasted longer and be closed by someone more neutral. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request by RussianDewey

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

RussianDewey is asking to be unblocked:

I wanna thank Mr.Just Chilling for unblocking my talk page, this is a huge privilege and opportunity to bring my case to the community on why I should be unblocked.

I have been exiled and indefinitely banned for two years, I have taken serious time to think about my actions very deeply, because number 1, I love Wikipedia and what it stands for in terms of being a platform that provides a wealth knowledge and I consider myself a Wikipedian at heart who loves to contribute and build on that knowledge and make sure Wikipedia grows even BIGGER. Secondly my past actions are out in display, I have probably committed every Wikipedia sin possible, I will do anything in order to gain the trust of the community back and uphold Wikipedia standards and rulings to the highest degree. I hope I have the full fledge trust of the community, I know I did Sockpuppet activity and let me tell you whats in the mind of sockpuppet like me "I can get away with it", in reality I can never get away with it, maybe if I start editing other articles but still,I want to do this the right way and I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION in certain areas of Wikipedia like Medieval History and Ottoman History, and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet.

I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. I am not saying welcome me with a clean slate but instead let me keep my history (good and bad) so I can be a better example,and I don't expect to be FULLY UNBLOCKED, I would love to have a mentor, and not edit until I receive a permission from him. I can be under such system for whatever length time of time you guys desire.RussianDewey (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've already run a check and found nothing. After this request sat in the unblock queue for around three weeks, taking it to the community was suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning support per clean Check, WP:ROPE, etc. It appears that he edits for the most part in good faith, and I don't see anything too terribly damning to oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Before I get all teary-eyed (which I nearly did) and endorse unblock, the original block was for a "a battleground mentality and inability to collaborate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#RussianDewey. Even though it's been four years, and RussianDewey has professed his undying love for Wikipedia, I'd like to see this addressed. In struggling through his talk pages, I found that it's been said that his very first edit was combative. What has changed?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm waiting for apellant to reply concerning matters covered in the ANI thread that led to original block. Not to his troubles w/ no wiki tags. The outbursts that followed and bombastic responses are what cooked his goose at that ANI. Hoping for the best.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jack Sebastian: The most recent sock blocked was User talk:Alexis Ivanov for harrassment and personal attacks

• His first edit was this. I'm not sure to what extent it's normal for one to first edit on another user's talk page, but while I do see some zeal in the diff I don't see anything too combative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  John M Wolfson,Thanks. That takes care of that.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  That was in March. By June 9, things had changed.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  So intimidation is how you work. I will not be intimated by a rat, try being civil next time. Hmm, that does throw a wrench into the works. I still lean support per ROPE, but I would not oppose a reblock if he does in fact "hang himself", as it were. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. It was the 21st Dennis Brown called it the "very first" in the ANI thread so long ago.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I have asked him (by which I meant RussianDewey, not DB} to respond on his talk page.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown has left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  You're kidding!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  The edit was summary "bye". QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I have seen years ago no wiki tags added to articles and other pages. There was a software glitch years ago. It looks like RussianDewey believed that admins were badging them and that escalated the drama. Things might of been different if admins were more understanding. The edits are overwhelming done in good faith. I can't say that about a few others who have not even received a single warning from a Wikipedia administrator for adding clear-cut WP:BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Still trying to fight your unrelated personal content dispute by all means. I feel somehow disgusted by that.--TMCk (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Struck off-topic borderline personal attack. Take it out side or get a room. Or ANI  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - People can reform, the user has had time to think about things. Second chance deserved. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question - Has the user been indef blocked before and come back to demonstrate the same behavior that got them blocked? I'm a huge believer in redemption, but how many bites at the apple should RussianDewey get? I also wonder if the user has been editing here anyway, under the radar as a sock, and wants unfettered access again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently NRP already [ran] a check and found nothing. Just below where he posted the request.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  See block log. The last block was 2ya for socking. (December, 2016) As you say, it's the stuff that lead to the original indef that has me awaiting apellant's response.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock request for an account with 41 mainspace edits that has been blocked for four years? Seems like an attempt at some tasty trolling given the earlier interaction history and the literary merits of the appeal. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• weak support per 2nd chance and the length of time that has passed. Appeal seemed sincerely contrite and reflective of a change.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Replies from RussianDewey--

• To my initial question:

  I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

    Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Archiving issues after page move

I think I did not fix the archive. The article was moved by another editor and the archives are under a different talk page name. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, I just did a one-click archiving of an old thread, and it goes to the right title of archives, but to the wrong page number. The counter has not been updated, and there is no detailed mention of an archiver or archiving in the templates of the page. Can you please post this problem at WP:VPT so someone can resolve the counter issue and perhaps also set up automatic archiving? Pinging Anthony Appleyard, who also made some alterations to the archiving of the page. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• The page is Talk:Nicotine marketing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) It was archived to Archive 1 instead of Archive 3.[3] QuackGuru (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Automatic archiving implemented. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am jumping at shadows...

Is anyone else noting an uptick in the number of contributors adding conservative sources to alter content on articles? I am getting a bit concerned over the attempts to hijack our neutrality pillar using the verifiability pillar.
Maybe I am just imagining it. It seems that I've been seeing all sorts of wacky edits trying to legitimize a lot of Alt-Right platforms, amongst them the deep state articles, as well as those pundits that argue the existence of that particular conspiracy theory.
Maybe I'm just channeling Heller's Catch-22 maxim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There has been an increase in the kind of edits you describe, but its not a recent thing. It started about 2 years ago, basically when the far-right and alt right was emboldened by their role (or at least their perceived role) in the election of Donald Trump, and his subsequent statements of false equivalence after Charlottesville. You might want to add some of the articles about these groups to your watchlist, and look out for attempts in insert their talking points (i.e. Nazism is far-left and not far-right, changing reliably sourced descriptions of groups and people to softer, less controversial ones, etc.). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. For example changing "Nazi Party" to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) implies that the Nazis were far-left because the party had "socialist" in their name. Of course they had no socialism in their party platform, if it was Fascist, and far-right. Recent removals of whitewashing: Diff of Joseph Goebbels, Diff of Erich von Manstein, Diff of Adolf Hitler, Diff of Nazi concentration camps, Diff of Nazi Germany — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Adding: the early Nazi Party members who were in favor of a more socialist platform were removed (i.e. killed) in the Night of the Long Knives — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles like Fascism and Nazism (or at least their talkpages, since the articles themselves have been permanently semi-protected) have been bombarded by editors seeking to redefine them as phenomena of the left, some because they take the "National Socialism" business literally, some because they feel that defining those movements as far-right demeans regular conservatives, others because they just want to hang all bad things on perceived political opponents. It's been going on at a high level for the past three years. There's also been a lot of editing on general alt-right topics and allied men's rights topics to try to whitewash them as something normal or innocuous. It's part of the environment right now. There are a lot of very patient editors who monitor those topics and their talkpages, who take a lot of abuse. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a little worried that Alt-Right-centered edits will be made to add biased references to smaller, lightly-monitored articles, and then use those gains as reference for other, more substantially-monitored articles.

Non-political articles that typify this sort of incremental change include the marginal OR that makes its way into continuity sections in Doctor Who articles; over time, the crush of editors wanting to note fan-observed connections within the Who-verse has stifled any comments regarding OR. Maybe that is an unfair comparison, but the process could easily serve as a template (worrying about even mentioning that, btw) for abuse.

I am concerned about the layering of less-objectional edits that end up being something of an Enabling Act, but for Wikipedia instead of government. It's probably just me; my dad used to work in disaster management; my siblings and I were raised to expect and plan for the worst outcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so other Wikipedia articles can't be cited in support of changes made elsewhere, but you have a good point. I added a large number of these articles to my watchlist a while ago, but I still constantly come across ones that I missed and need to be monitored pretty continuously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think yu misapprehended my statements; I wasn't suggesting that wiki articles would be used to cite other articles. I noted that biased citations could be inserted into lesser-watched articles which would make them less likely to be caught when used in better-monitored articles, the idea that if it is consensus in another article, it should be considered as legitimate in this article. Such a pre-existing consensus can be used to change guidelines (using the aforementioned Who-related articles and enclosing wikiproject).

I think that, in a post-Trump world, the objective truth is under attack and places like Wikipedia and Snopes are part of the front lines of those attacks. - Jack Seba1stian (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I've got you now, sorry I misunderstood your point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight: are you saying that "conservative sources" are too biased and unacceptable for use in Wikipedia? We should be using liberal sources only? n.b. in my experience, I have seen that Wikipedia articles are firmly anchored in left-leaning sources to the exclusion of any other type; this is a reflection of the general worldviews of the editors adding the sources (they're gonna add sources they themselves read, obviously, and they will not be purposely seeking out opposing viewpoints that might be at odds with their own confirmation bias.) Therefore, Wikipedia's systemic bias is reinforced as a natural consequence of a pool of preferred sources (as well as campaigns to deprecate all sorts of stuff on the right.) Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. "Left-leaning" sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post and CNN are all over Wikipedia, while it consitently and unreasonably rejects "conservative" sources like Breitbart News and Infowars. It's so unfair. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

How does that one quote go? "Reality has a liberal bias"?--WaltCip (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a valid point here. When we start discussing content in a ongoing political topic that is based on analysis, opinions/etc. of the sources, and beyond the facts, that's where the combined liberal bias of our sources and our editors shows. NYTimes, WaPost, and CNN are all valid sources on factual content and why we want these sources to be used, but their opinions tend to be slanted to the left, and moreso with WaPost and CNN, tend to shun the right. And it's very clear that the average political viewpoint of experienced WP editors tends to fall left, which support this sources being used as to discuss the reaction to the political story. These all create the bias that those trying to boister the right are trying to fight. Arguably the better solution is to simply omit those opinions, and avoid analysis and opinion on an ongoing political topic until there is enough time for the topic to no longer be of political concern and a 20/20 hindsight can be given to it (for example, we're now at a time that a fair summary of opinions on Reaganomics can be made); or if that opinion becomes news itself (eg January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation) This still may be a liberal-biased view but at least we have a much better rationale for stating that by showing that that was the long-term summation of opinions, rather than us trying to weed out the most important opinions while the political topic is going on. (This has been a point of my NOTNEWS/RECENTISM aspects that I've been trying to promote).

That said, fighting that imbalance with forced inclusion of bad sources like Breitbart is definitely not the right way to go. --Masem (t) 17:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Systemic vs. campaign-related bias

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

---

I certainly noticed some extreme weirdness at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory after my part of that article's recent expansion from 88 to 136kb. But the attempts to hide the Mueller Report's expose of Paul Manafort's attempt to trade campaign internal polling data and a promise to carve up Eastern Ukraine for help in Midwestern Democratic strongholds was much more pronounced recently. I suppose the latter could be considered as bad as I remember from six years ago, when there was all kinds of crap from major systemic biases including paid editing from the largest political campaigns in the US. But who's really keeping count of these things?

I am asking the community, Jimbo Wales, and Katherine Maher to endorse lifting my topic ban on economics and agricultural chemicals to allow me to discuss these issues in detail. EllenCT (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo and Katherine have nothing to do with your ban, nor have any role interfering with how enwiki runs it's business. At this point, it might be worth looking into giving you a petition ban. If you want your ban lifted, convince the community it's in its best interest to lift it. Not Jimbo or the WMF executive director. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: what in your view are the advantages and disadvantages of forbidding discussion of banned topics when petitioning for appeal of a topic ban? Do you believe the community was right to forbid me from speaking on economics? And on agricultural chemicals? I have appealed to both Jimbo and Katherine in their individual capacities as members of the English Wikipedia community. EllenCT (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to have the ban overturned, you need to start the formal procedure here, making a statement. What you started here is not a valid avenue for lifting a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

An aside

What made me wonder about the uptick in conservative edits was some stuff over at the bio of Jimmy Dore. I got pulled in over a Feedback Request Service request, and...well, its been a bit like Captain Marvel, and the 300 film; all the edits seem a raging proxy fight over something else entirely. While the aforementioned tendentious discussions were involved incels and Persian nationalism respectively, the kerfuffle at Jimmy Dore is pretty much about legitimizing the deep state conspiracy theory. Dore believes in it, and its a hallmark of his fame/infamy; it is one of the ways in which he is defined and identified.
A few editors feel that - despite references to the contrary, he is not, and shouldn't be called such, because of the "negative connotation implied with the phrase 'conspiracy theory'". The edits in favor of this seem... really organized, and I am having some difficulty making headway, using policy and guidelines.
New contributors have started to weigh in who's pages appear to be solely SPA accounts pushing the conservative pov as well as the deep state narrative. I've requested for some page protection until the matter can be sorted out in talk, but that doesn't seem to be something that will occur anytime soon. Maybe more experienced eyes could take a look and separate the wheat from the chaff? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well you first example is an interesting one. Per the article, CNN has describe the subject's show as "a far-left YouTube channel". And my read of the article is it's probably accurate. I haven't looked at the article history much but at least this reversion of yours [4] it strikes me from precisely what was said that the comments you removed are probably coming from someone of a similar ilk i.e. sympathetic to the far-left POV. It wouldn't surprise me if whoever added this and many of the editors causing problems in the article are similar, i.e. more extreme Bernie bro than MAGA crowd. So not really a sign of an uptick of conservative edits. And perhaps also a reminder that while the deep state conspiracy theory is particularly in vogue with some conservatives in the US at the moment, as with many conspiracy theories it transcends simple political boundaries. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nate Speed

Argh, you know what he did... Sent me an attack email. What should I do? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

He’s also site-banned and sent me that email with an alternate account. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nigos What account? Sro23 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

UHSEJISRYJY. His email definitely shows that he’s Nate Speed. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Put the email into /dev/null. Do not reply to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn’t reply to it. What’s /dev/null? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 04:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Throw it in the trash. /dev/null — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 04:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If he makes violent threats, you may wish to contact WP:EMERGENCY and/or your local police. Nate Speed is kind of known for that. Also, I regret not filing a complaint with his email provider at the time that he made a death threat against me. He's probably used that same email address to make a bunch of other death threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to this, I received a similar email from him yesterday as well. Reported it to WP:EMERGENCY and to WP:SPI. If he emails you again Nigos, do not respond to it, do not feed the trolls. Just report it to WP:EMERGENCY or to police, and to SPI or to AIV. IanDBeacon (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 07:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

He asked his Reddit followers to hack Wikipedia accounts... See https://www.reddit.com/r/hacking/comments/63j9ye/someone_please_hack_these_wikipedia_accounts_for/. I had reported him to the admins there. This is getting really serious. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 07:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That was 2 years ago, the message content has been deleted and archived, and he didn't exactly get a good response to it. Revert, block, ignore. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow, they WRITE LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!! D:< in casual conversations. —RainFall 09:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nate's history on the net is not a pretty read. He's been attacking several Wikia sites with socks for so many years that the Wikia staff developed specific tools that can stop him in his tracks. There are at least 5 Wikia sites that he had been hitting on a fairly regular basis. He's tried to elicit the aid of hackers (going as far as starting a GoFundMe) and he escalated to masquerading as Wikia staff to try and send a malware to a pair of the main hunters of his socks. That resulted in the two users sending in reports to the Federal Trade Commission and the FBI as well as his ISP. Blackmane (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we use those tools? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nigos: From what I've read, Wikia requires users to create accounts. When the account is created, it sends an email for confirmation. They've developed something that somehow picks up that the creation request originates from Nate Speed and no email confirmation for account creation is sent to him so no matter how much he tries Wikia is now denied to him. The other thing that I've read is that as he hits other Wikias with his socks, the tools get deployed on those Wikias as well. Unfortunately, there is no appetite to force anonymous editors to create accounts so this isn't really a viable option. I suppose we could request edit filters be created to catch the most common types of edits that Nate S makes . As for email harassment T&S is the only avenue to address this. He has a long history with @GethN7: that spans years. Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Blackmane: that's what I was also thinking about. All of his edits are similar: semi-censored vulgarities in all caps, and he sometimes censors names of infamous political groups that he thinks are bad words. So it should catch most of those kinds of edits. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

He's got a number of tells and he uses them in an obsessive way so he wouldn't be hard to filter. Blackmane (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There should be more than enough deleted diffs for the filter to "know" what edits he usually does. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There should be plenty of examples indeed. I expect that the Edit filter requests board will need some recent examples of diffs to filter him out. Blackmane (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

yes; there are a lot of diffs with his content on this page already. They can also look at his deleted diffs on his other accounts. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article

I'm writing to request a review at the closure of the RFC I started on the order of the paragraphs in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran. The RFC was closed by Cinderella157. Before coming here, I discussed the issue with Cinderella157, where I asked how he had found the 'chronological order' arguments to be "compelling". Some users, including me, belived that guidelines MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more" and WP:BETTER, which says the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable," had to be applied. This is while, others believed that 'chronological order' of the paragraph had to be kept since they thought the lead could get misleading if the orders were changed.

The closing user believes that the users in favor of having the paragraph on the terrorist cult designation of the group in the second place, were not sepceific enough, while I told him (with modification) his evaluation of the comments were not accurate since comments [5], [6] and [7] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. So, I believe in the closure of that RFC by Cinderella157 the arguments made based on guidelines were discredited. Can an experienced admin address my request please? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Response by closer,

• It is not sufficient for a comment citing a guideline or like to have weight simply because a guideline or like is cited. It must be relevant in some way to deciding the issue at hand.
• The issue to be determined was the ordering of paragraphs in the lead.
• The guidance cited does not go to deciding the issue at hand.
  • MOS:LEADORDER considers where the lead prose falls within other elements of the lead. It does not give guidance on selecting the ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose - the question to be resolved. It does link to MOS:INTRO.
  • MOS:INTRO gives guidance on the first para and first sentence. While it touches on the lead prose in total more fully, it does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • WP:BETTER and the subsection WP:BETTER/GRAF1 touches on the lead specifically. The advice is much as MOS:INTRO and does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • In WP:BETTER, the Layout section does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see below).
  • Neither of the two links cited are relevant to resolving the question of the RfC. This was pointed out to Mhhossein in the response I gave at my TP: [The] links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal.[8]
• The existing lead is based on a chronological organisational structure. The proposal was to simply reorder the last paragraph to second position (without other adjustment) - thereby breaking the organisational (chronological) structure being used. For this reason, maintaining the chronological structure was seen as a compelling arguement.
  • It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure: ... not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout in the section MOS:BODY. There, it states ... articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs. However, one does not need to burrow through layers of Wiki guidance to acknowledge such principles.

This is a longer answer as, apparently, the shorter version at my TP was not sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Further comments

Talk:History of chess#Greco-Roman origin of chess

Hello. I'd like to invite a sysop to take part in this discussion to adjudicate by ensuring that it is done in compliance with site policies and guidelines. I'm not making a formal complaint at the moment but I have seen the need to warn another participant about a breach of WP:CANVAS and there has been some disquiet about reverting sourced content even though it was under discussion before being added to the article. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3O would be better?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The key issue of canvassing seems to have been dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MaxBrowne2 and via ANEW. The other was also I think raised but is a non issue. @No Great Shaker: there's a very good chance you're not going to get much of a response in ~2 hours. If you feel there is likely to be merit in opening an ANI thread on a specific editor, you should do so in the first instance lest you be accused of WP:Forum shoppping. In addition, if you really do change your mind and want to open an ANI, you should come back to your earlier thread and inform people that you opened the ANI complaint as well as mention on the ANI that you opened this AN. In fact if no one has responded and it's only been 2 hours you can probably remove your AN thread although do still mention your AN thread when opening the ANI thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Move war at Puebla

A couple of editors have been thrashing the heck out of Puebla capital, Puebla City, Puebla (city), etc. Can some admin please try to figure out how to unwind and repair, and see who needs to be told to stop? Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've restored to the stable title and move protected. If someone wants a move, they can file an WP:RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Editor involved is have some other problems as seen here.--Moxy 🍁 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The move warrior, User:JkMastru has switched over to regular edit warring at United States. They have been blocked for 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked that editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic

Prior recent/relevant discussions

• User talk:MJL#Council proposals (permalink)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Netoholic_reported_by_User:Bilorv_(Result:_24_hours)
• User talk:Netoholic#Blocked (permalink)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men

Background

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

Netoholic has (in several words) challenged my close of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men as out of process,^[9][10][11] WP:INVOLVED,^{[12][13][14][15][16]} WP:BADNAC,^[17] a form of WP:GAMING,^[18][19] edit warring,^[20][21] and the like. I have disputed all of those claims at my talk page. Despite actively discussing this matter with me, decided to revert my close again (more background on my talk page and ANEW report). They have since been blocked for edit warring.^[22] As Bilorv so succinctly put it: The person who was edit warring is the one who made six reverts, deliberately trying to game 3RR, not the people who made two reverts each, with encouragements to discuss the matter in their edit summaries.

I am submitting this closure for self-review since Neto is blocked. It's not that I don't stand by my close at this point. It's that Netoholic has flat out stated that nothing less than this proposal being up for several years would be sufficient to them.^[23] I feel that is an absurd request to make from an editor who seems to be demonstrating clear WP:IDHT.

Should I be reverted and what is to be said of the actions concerning Netoholic? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Endorse per the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Men after an AfD in which the closer wrote (in part) Consensus appears to be that this project violates WP:POINT and/or WP:NPOV, plus concerns about the clarity of the scope, the redundancy to existing projects (chiefly WP:MEN) ... Netoholic violated WP:FORUMSHOP by making a council proposal page, and there were no (other) supporters of the project despite widespread discussion about it so it's clearly not a productive area to keep discussing over and over again. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I don’t really see much of anything to close. It had three participants. Wikiprojects on the whole are dead (with a few notable exceptions such as MILHIST) and I honestly had no clue that the “WikiProject Council” even existed beyond a weird logo on talk pages that we’d never bothered to get rid of. Pointless close because a three person discussion about a loosely/not at all regulated part of Wikipedia doesn’t consensus make. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - project was clearly a duplicate or fork of WP:MEN, or else so broad in scope (things of interest to men? as in, basically everything?) as to be useless. Netoholic should focus this energy on rejuvenating WP:MEN if that's their interest. Maybe they didn't intend their project proposal to be pointy, but it became pointy anyway. Might I also suggest marking the WikiProject Council proposals process historic if it's so poorly attended? Expecting things to wait years for approval indicates a process that has outlived its usefulness. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I’d agree with this. I’m not exactly thrilled with Netoholic’s behaviour here and don’t really think the close should be “overturned” but I also don’t really see much of a point to it since that can hardly be called a discussion. If people want to create a WikiProject, let them and then sort it out at MfD if it causes issues. Most of them no one will even notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• ... sort it out at MfD if it causes issues. At the MfD of the proposal page, three editors !voted close and the closer wrote "Closing/archiving the proposal should not require MfD intervention." [24] Looks to me like consensus to close. Endorse. – Levivich 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Reclose with an uninvolved closer This is a mess all around. I don't quite see how RL0919 gets keep from this discussion. So I would say that is a bad close that should be overturned and if this weren't already here and I was made aware of it I would take it to DRV. The fact that there was something to nominate (again) is POINTY behavior, which is only shown further by the edit warring that went on around that so good block there. However, MJL was clearly not an uninvolved editor in all this and as such should clearly not have been the person closing this. I don't think his close was wrong, but the reason WP:RFC calls for an uninvolved editor is precisely so that accusations of bad faith on the closer's part are harder to level. And while this isn't the forum for it I would support efforts to mark the WikiProject Council as historical. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse This is typical IDHT territory and Netoholic needs to be probably TBanned from these spheres, because because his arguments seem to be approaching MRA-esque stuff very rapidly. But, MJL, you were not the best-placed editor to close this. ∯WBG^converse 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Barkeep49 and Winged Blades of Godric: I would agree that I may not have been the best person to close this, but that is why I made my offer to discuss this out first with Neto.^[25] I was rather shocked that they chose to edit war over it rather than actually just be cordial and polite. I'm not unreasonable, and I generally revert when asked for the right reasons.^[26] I'd like to additionally discuss the topic ban that WBG mentioned. It might be overdue here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged: I have no opinion about whether or not this proposal should be closed, but I hope that I was clear that the result at the Miscellany for deletion (writing that out in full as a reminder that "deletion" is part of the name) discussion about the proposal was only that the proposal page should not be deleted, not that it shouldn't be closed. Closing or not closing proposals isn't the focus of MfD as a forum. If the participants on the page can't resolve it there (which it seems they can't), then a dispute resolution venue such as this one is the right place for that to be decided. --RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  As the person who pinged you, I think your close was clear. I just don't see how you reached a consensus of keep from that discussion especially as only a couple months before a different MfD came to a delete decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  One MfD was about an actual WikiProject and the other MfD was about a proposal for a possible WikiProject, so I don't see different results as that surprising. In the discussion I closed, out of eight participants only the nominator and one other flatly favored deletion, with a third being open to deletion as an option. Most of the rest wanted the page kept but the proposal closed. I think it is very reasonable to ask why the author of the proposal would look at that MfD and think it was appropriate to revert the subsequent closure of the project proposal, but in the MfD close itself I was trying to stick to only addressing the normal remit of MfD. --RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well given the pretty strong consensus against the project's existence at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men, and the lack of any support other than the OP for creating the project in the discussion in question, we clearly don't have consensus for creating the project. Anybody who does want to create it needs to define it in such a way that it has a meaningful scope which isn't just that of WP:MEN and similar projects on gender issues. A projects focusing on the men's rights movement and related topics would clearly duplicate WP:MEN and there wasn't any articulated benefit for having a project to improve biographies of men. Hut 8.5 20:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm looking at Netoholic's block log. A lot of it is irrelevant ancient history, but two 24-hour blocks in the last three months suggest there is still a problem with unnecessary edit warring. The entries in the block log suggest that Netoholic was under a 1RR restriction at some point. Is now a good time to re-impose it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• IMO the problematic recent history extends beyond just the edit warring blocks:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#User:Netoholic and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Deletion TBAN
  • The WT:Notability (academics) RfCs [27] [28]
  • Created WP:WikiProject Men (deleted, now a redirect to WP:MEN), then Category:Men's history (deleted), then WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men (no consensus), and then edit warred over the close of the proposal page (subject of this thread)
  • Repeated reversions at...
    • WP:NPOVN over a notice about an WP:MR thread about Chairman (1, 2)
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (1, 2, 3)
    • Steven Crowder (1, 2, 3, 4)
    • Chairperson (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
    • Template:Masculinism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
    • Template:Masculism sidebar (1, 2, 3)
    • Masculism (see the history in May) – Levivich 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment -- edit warring is actually a fairly minor aspect of the whole story. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and edit warring by editor Wadaad

Editor Wadaad is currently edit warring on Somalia, [29], [30], [31]. They've been warned about their edit warring behaviour [32], [33], [34] and explicitly told that the issue was discussed and editors have actually reached a consensus on the article's talk page, they were informed of this multiple times, both on their talk page [35], as well as the article's talk page [36]. Multiple requests were made for them to perform a self-revert and discuss the changes they want to make instead to form consensus and they explicitly refused to do so on their talk page [37] as well as on the article's talk page [38].

In addition to all of this, they seem to be spewing questionable opinions about how their disregard for the previous consensus process was due to Wikipedia being populated by white males and how their lack of "knowledge of topics related to Somalia" is somehow a reason for Wadaad to disregard previous consensus reached on the talk page [39], or how another editor who disagreed with his stance is not suitable because he is Taiwanese [40]. They have previously been blocked in 2014 for the same edit warring behaviour [41]. Kzl55 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Admins, I was merely restoring the original map of Somalia (prior to Kzl55's change - the person making this complaint). He never had any broad consensus for his change. Only a single individual separatist from Somaliland (clearly biased) and a Taiwanese (again biased - see Foreign relations of Taiwan it is a similarly disputed territory) agreed with him. You cannot change the borders of a sovereign nation's territory based on the opinion of two separatists. He never reached any broad consensus from various relevant stakeholders for his change and is now trying to put me as the bad guy for his very own agenda pushing (he is from Somaliland and initiated this all). I am restoring material, I am not being disruptive. Lastly, his map does not reflect the truth, see the various maps on Somali Civil War. Wadaad (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As Wadaad hit five reverts and clearly had no intention of stopping despite a final warning from me, I've blocked them for 48 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Amalthea

Did User:Amalthea (bot) stop working? As in SPI clerking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Seems to be working again, as it edited the CCI checklist and SPI. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Help!!!

Someone from IP address 217.97.101.224 wanted to reset my password. Help! Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Its the same user spamming me on simplewiki, commons and English Wikinews. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my password. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

They're just entering your username in the "forgot password" form. They can't hack into your account this way, since the emails only go to you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Personally, I'm OK with anyone trying to reset my password of anything because they're very likely to fail. Hope you didn't hurriedly switch to a weak password. Also, the IP (Special:Contribs/217.97.101.224) is currently globally blocked, but a local administrator has decided to disable [the block] on this wiki? I don't see any log for this and I'd never seen such a notice before. —Rutilant 08:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. But that user is a LTA one and is globally banned. He was also spamming talk pages on other wikis using other IP addresses. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If they're causing a global nuisance, you can report them to m:SRG. There's little we can do about it here. If they're causing a visible nuisance here, report them to WP:AIV. If they're just trying to send 'reset password' links, you can probably just ignore them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If you read the notice carefully, it just describes what could happen. This notice is displayed for every global block. Local global unblocks are very rare and logged here: Special:Log/gblblock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

First time seeing a globally blocked IP, then. Some blocks are marked as locally disabled: Thought it meant some blocks of the IP. Never mind. —Rutilant 08:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to compare a locally disabled global block, see this. The wording has always caused a bit of confusion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Learn a "what's best" (WikiSoftware) and also correct my edit summary's "OzWIN" typo that should have been typed as "OzWin" @ CompuServe

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

---

My edit summary @ CompuServe now has a RedLinked "OzWIN" that should read "OzWin"

I did an empty edit with a followup edit summary/note, so this is surely not urgent, but my reason for coming here is to learn if

• it's better that my empty edit be deleted, and the RedLinked edit summary be edited by an admin
• vs. fixing my edit summary, and then doing some type of "suppress" of my followup be done (of the kind when for some CopyVio incidents)

Thanks for your answer (and intervention) in advance.

I'm posting here since Help:Edit_summary#Fixing doesn't point to a (probably not yet existing) facility, automated or via human intervention, to edit a summary. Could it be coded? I'd guess yes; should it? That why I'm posting here for someone "at a higher pay scale" (a phrase I've heard from more than one person) to discuss. Pi314m (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a different question about your edit summaries: what is "\\*" and why are you including it at the beginning of each one? Did you know that "/* ... */" is automatically generated for section edits? Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Edit summaries can be suppressed but this isn't used (as far as I know) for accidental mistakes. They cannot be edited. Correct practice when you make a mistake like this is to make a dummy edit with the correct link, which is exactly what you did. I don't think anything further can be done. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• ^ what Bilorv said. There is no need to suppress the first edit. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Problems with Bosniak nationalism on Turkish Croatia article

It's about this. Santasa99 is systematicly removing any traces of Croatian history in that area, and presents the whole article in nationalistic views. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User presume to much, which feels too personal in this case!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is important to write from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

IP block issue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T189362

I have 'account creation' and 'IP block exempt' status, but have just been blocked from creating an account at Coventry University, where I recently started work as Wikimedian in Residence, and am using an IP address in the range 194.66.32.0/19.

Can anyone explain why this has happened, given my user rights, and help me to overcome it? Is there a better venue to ask in? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

194.66.32.0/19 is blocked with “account creation blocked”. Amending the block to allow account creation ought resolve this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption does not allow account creation. (and discussion here) ST47 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; I've commented on the Phabricator ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Could somebody do that, please? Maybe user:JamesBWatson, who applied the original block? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to unblock an IP with edits like these. However, I don't see any evidence of abuse from accounts created via this IP, so I would agree with dropping the block to "anon only". Could a checkuser such as TonyBallioni or Berean Hunter confirm if there is a problem with turning off ACB, and if there isn't, recommend this course of action? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't something done to make account-requests super fast for a desired blocked range? Someguy1221 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that such edits are troubling; and clearly some action (hopefully including a prompt report to the University) was needed. But it was well over a year ago; the block is for two years and affects over 30K students and staff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy, try to create an account now and let us know if it works. It should.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: As far as I can see, the only change you have made to the block is to remove the "anon. only" flag, which will mean that Andy won't be able to edit from the IP address at all, and still won't be able to create accounts. I guess this was a mistake, but I am pinging you rather than trying to correct it just in case there is some rational explanation that I don't know about. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hanging on per James' comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I think you are looking at one that I converted into a hardblock (the troublemaker) but that isn't it. :) Andy, go ahead and try to make an account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thank you; I'm not in Coventry until Monday; I'll try then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

General solutions for event coordinators

Thank you Ritchie333 for pinging me. In general, when an event coordinator finds themselves behind a standing rangeblock there are a couple of potential solutions.

• If they don't know which IPs may be in use, or there are many, then they may email a checkuser ahead of time and if there are no problems, the checkuser can quietly turn the block off for an event. The coordinator may email the CU when it is over and they will restore the block.

• If they know particular IPs that they will be using, perhaps long term, then the better solution is to give that info to a checkuser so that they may create a pinhole block which should allow those specific IPs account creation ability. That is, a block on a specific IP overrides a rangeblock and account creation should be allowed.

Bluerasberry has had problems like this before so pinging him as an FYI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• The override sounds interesting. Just to confirm: assuming I am an admin hit by a range-ACB, can I simply additionally block my own IP non-ACB to override the account creation limitation? [I am unable to try this at the moment, but it sounds like a useful trick]. —Kusma (t·c) 14:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It should technically, yes, but admins should be careful about unblocking their own IPs. If you allowed yourself anon editing privileges on a hardblocked range, that might get you in trouble depending on the circumstances. You wouldn't want to leave an impression of IP socking AND you unblocked the IP yourself. For ACB, you probably wouldn't have any trouble. The best practice would be to contact the blocking admin or a checkuser to ask if it is alright. That way someone would know about it.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure I have had this discussion lots of times. When it happens to me I do workarounds like getting people to register on their phone's cell connection which will have another IP address. The solution that I want is that people with event coordinator rights should be able to make accounts which can immediately do live editing. I forget why this does not happen but confirm that I experience it.

If anyone makes a proposal to address the issue then I would jump into that. Probably the best place for this is the event coordinator talk page. I have faith that talking through the issues will bring a solution. The problem seems recurrent and long term but actually I think that every iteration of the discussion fixes some aspect of it and makes progress. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• For admins making rangeblocks, you can detect pinhole blocks on discrete IP addresses as described above by using Stalk toy thanks to Pathoschild. This tool also allows you to see overlapping rangeblocks and blocks on other wikis including proxy blocks...useful for detecting crosswiki abuse. In this example, you can see overlapping rangeblocks by JamesBWatson and a discrete IP block by Yamaguchi in the same range. If James had set a hardblock then Yamaguchi's anonblock could be exploited so James could remove that one to prevent it from happening.

• This example shows crosswiki proxy blocks where the proxies are dynamic and shifting IP addresses regularly, making that a good candidate for a rangeblock. Chuck Entz's rangeblock on Wiktionary is set to expire in about two weeks but he can feel assured that it is still an active proxy range by seeing the blocks on other projects. Of course, he can use SQL and Musikanimal's Proxy API Checker to confirm that. I did on July 2. For admins that find that tool useful, please endorse SQL's proposal on meta to keep his project going. Nevermind the last bit as they have approved it today.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Workaround

If you create accounts for your event using the Program & Events Dashboard you should avoid this issue (as the creations will be routed through the dashboard server, which is not on a blocked ip address). This is self-service, but you would want to set it up in advance of your event. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but this isn't about stand alone events, but all my work as a Wikimedian in Residence - for instance, today I helped an individual set up an account and start editing; and advised a second, separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: again this is a workaround - but what you could do is create a very long independent event in PED - let it run all year for example. You don't have to use it for article tracking, assignment, etc - you could use it just for signup and account creation. Getting ipblock-exempt to not freeze up on account creation is certainly ideal, just trying to help you do something while you wait! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm missing something, but can't the block be lifted, the account be created, and then the block re-enforced straight after? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Enforced BRD vs. Consensus required

Hi all, I've been in a disagreement with Awilley for this for months, and I think this should be resolved by community consensus. As many people know, Coffee templated most of the American politics articles with consensus required, and basically made it the standard in the topic area. Awilley has basically undone this and replaced it with Enforced BRD, which he is encouraging any admin who has used consensus required to replace it with, even if it is a new sanction

All that said, this has been going on long enough, that I think having a poll of the community on this question is needed so admins can see what the general view of the community is here on the sanctions process. I'm proposing three options:

• Option 1: administrators are encouraged to use the Enforced BRD sanction to the exclusion of the consensus required sanction
• Option 2 administrators are encouraged to used consensus required to the exclusion of Enforced BRD
• Options 3 administrators are encouraged to use their individual discretion on each article they put under page-level sanctions and there is no preferred remedy in any given topic area.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 I prefer consensus required, and think it makes more sense than "Enforced BRD", but I also get that some don't like it. That's okay: the whole point of the discretionary sanctions system is that individual administrators are allowed to judge articles on their merits. As I said elsewhere today, I'm much less likely to sanction someone if they are on a consensus required article because all they have to do is agree to use the talk page to come to agreement. In my view, Enforced BRD encourages disruption and edit warring, and personally as an admin, I find it difficult to to figure out what is going on so I just ignore any page with it as a sanction, which is fine. I'm also more likely to just not put a page under page-level sanctions at all than I am to put EBRD on it, or even use standard 1RR.
  I think administrators should be trusted to use their judgement as to what the situation entails, and that there really shouldn't be a preferred sanction. During the "Coffee-era" admins didn't use CR if they didn't want to, and that's fine, but they should be allowed to use it or any sanction they think works (including Enforced BRD or no page-level sanction at all.) Having one sanction be the standard didn't serve us well when one admin did it, and I don't think it serves us well if another is doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: Can you link to the pages that describe "Enforced BRD" and "Consensus required"? Sandstein 18:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Sandstein, here is Awilley's description of the differences User:Awilley/Consensus Required vs Enforced BRD, which is written very pro-Enforced BRD. My view of it is that it encourages people to ignore talk page discussions once 24 hours are up, while CR focuses on consensus, which is what we should be going for. At the same time, I do get that in the Coffee-era it was controversial, so I don't think it should be the standard. I just think that it should be an option and that administrators should feel free to use it if they think it is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4: Do not systematically use page-level sanctions. In my experience, they generate more enforcement overhead than they are worth for most articles. Most issues can be solved with user-level sanctions or full protection / semiprotection. There are some rare cases where page-level sanctions work, but I don't think we should use them across hundreds of pages. Sandstein 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd actually agree with this and was part of my thinking with "option 3". I almost included "or remedy at all" in it, and guess I should have now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 WP:ACDS refers multiple times to administrator flexibility. Option 3 seems to be the option most in line with the intent of WP:ACDS. Schazjmd (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 Each system has its own merits and drawbacks. Administrator discretion is I think the best way to go. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Coffee originally formulated the Consensus Required rule to eliminate the following scenario common in articles with just vanilla 1RR: Editor A adds contentious material to an article; Editor B reverts (using thier 1RR); Editor A reverts (using their 1RR), leaving the article in a non-consensus state. Please read the diff. Coffee's motivation was to "reduce the unnecessary workload faced by [content] editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, [etc.]" Ironically the sanction has had the opposite effect, increasing the workload for content editors by forcing them to gain explicit talkpage consensus for any modification they want to make that might be objectionable to any partisan POV-pushing editor on either "side" of the aisle. It has enabled a generation of peanut-gallery POV pushers who consistently show up on the talk page to vote, argue, and stonewall for their side, but who never take the time to do any actual editing of the article other than the occasional "challenge" revert. Nor did Coffee (I suspect) anticipate the ambiguities (see point #7 in my essay) or the extra mental load (point #5) that would be added by Consensus Required.
  In framing the BRD rule I found myself having to make a compromise: I needed to
  1. Help return a degree of normalcy to the topic area while still blocking the 1RR loophole that Coffee was trying to eliminate
  2. Still have a sanction strict enough to be palatable to admins accustomed to Consensus Required. (At that the time the only way to remove CR was by obtaining a consensus of admins, since Coffee retired after placing the sanctions.)

Enough history. Of the above options, my first choice would be Option 4 (Sandstein). A page-level sanction adversely affects all users editing the page. I think a better approach is to place sanctions only on the "problem editors" whose edit warring led to the page being sanctioned in the first place. I actually think the CR sanction would be a fabulous sanction for individual editors who routinely revert against consensus. My second choice would probably be Option 1 since BRD is slightly better than CR, and uniformity throughout the topic area would take a mental load off the brave editors who still work there. ~Awilley (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Also agree with Sandstein. I, as well, had come to realize that it's best to use these sparingly. Certainly, less systemically than topic|1RR, per se. I do, however, disagree with Awilley that enforced BRD is "slightly better" than CR — that line of argument has never been established to my satisfaction. Anyway, I think it's best to leave this up to admin discretion (Option 3). El_C 20:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - other options have benefits and drawbacks. Each option might work better on a specific article. Option 3 gives admins flexibility to apply the best approach. Option 1 could create stagnant articles. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @QuackGuru: Curious: how would Option 1 create stagnant articles? (I could see that argument being made for option 2 perhaps.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • New edits can easily be reverted if BRD is strictly enforced. But it depends on the situation. I reverted back to consensus and then another editor reverted me and cited BRD. I stated there was misleading content and I was largely ignored. I may start a RfC to fix the original research and other problematic content. I never seen an admin enforce V policy. If that happened editors would be blocked and banned very rapidly. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 and Option 4 - In other words, admins should not systematically apply page-level sanctions in the first place, but when they do, they should look closely at the previous editorial behavior on the page, and apply the sanction which makes the most sense. It would be best, in general, if an admin applying a sanction would restore the page to the status quo ante before doing so, whichever version of DS sanction tey are about to apply. In my experience, the vast majority of disruption on AP pages comes from editors attempting to change a long-standing consensus version, so reverting to that version would roll back the clock while DS sanctions have the opportunity to work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5 Copy this whole discussion (proposals, votes, and responses to votes) to the village pump for proposals, since this kind of discussion doesn't belong at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Inclined to agree. The non-admin perspective is going to be under-represented on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  I chose here, because this is normally the place other than AE that discretionary sanctions are discussed and it is also an appropriate venue for dispute resolution, which at this point this is. I don't think VPP or VPR would be appropriate as there is no policy that's trying to be set, but rather the community view on a specific type of sanctions. Additionally, this issue has been discussed here before (pre-Awilley changing all of Coffee's sanctions), so it seemed like it has precedent. This board and ANI both have plenty of non-admin comments, so I don't think that's a good argument, and since it's already here, I would oppose moving it: it'd be an exercise in bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake and would likely receive less attention and not be resolved as quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  I have placed a neutral pointer to this discussion on VPP, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you BMK. I think that is a good idea while keeping this discussion visible here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option 5, option 4, or option 3, in that order, for the reasons given by others above. Thanks to BMK for the pointer, it helps, but I thought the portal thread and other recent threads showed consensus for holding policy-level discussions elsewhere (and "should we have CR or EBRD on all pages in a topic area" is a policy-level discussion even if it's not about making a change to a WP:PAG). Substantively, I very much agree with Sandstein about sanctioning just the problematic editors, rather than creating unusual rules that all editors must abide by. It's what I think of when I think of WP:NOTBURO. – Levivich 00:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• A non-admin perspective. Feel free to ignore if I'm too far out of scope, I don't wish to distract from the core discussion; but I'm otherwise agnostic.
  A legitimate question is, "Why do we need different process rules for different highly contentious articles?" The only justifiable division is between highly contentious articles and everything else; the considerations at all contentious articles are the same, or close enough. It seems to me the current "flexibility" exists only because we don't want to require admins to use a single common system whether it's what they would prefer or not, and it seems to me that's a bug, not a feature. All of us are required to adapt, and freedom from adaptation should not be a perk for inducing more editors to take up the mop. We can entertain ongoing discussions about what's the optimum system indefinitely as far as I'm concerned, but there should never be more than one system in force at a given time. The whole ACDS thing needs to be overhauled, maybe even eliminated. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I think the general answer to the question "Why do we need different process rules for different highly contentious articles?" is that the nature of the behavior can differ from article to article. Not all content disputes are equal, and admins should be able to select the DS which best fits the circumstance of the editing history of each article, without having "one size fits all". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I know that's the general answer, which is why I said , or close enough. Any such benefit should be weighed fairly against its costs; at this juncture I'll assume that the costs don't need enumeration. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I really don't understand: what "costs" are you talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Absent any indication that the community is interested in such a discussion, I don't think this is the place or time for that. I've seen too many discussions derailed because editors are unwilling or unable to limit scope. It was worth a feeler, but no more at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC) How is it "derailing" a discussion if you say that using specific sanctions for specific situations has a cost, and then aren't willing to discuss what those costs are? It seems relevant to me, but if you now don't think it is, would you please strike through your previous comments concerning "costs"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC) No. I've explained myself adequately. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC) It's quite clear that you don't want to discuss this any more, but... no, you have not "explained yourself adequately", which is why I asked for an explanation in the first place. Perhaps the next time you bring up something in a notice board discussion, you might think about whether you're prepared to follow through with it. In any event, I'm collapsing this non-discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: Since this is collapsed already I'll add my 5 cents. Every page-level sanction has costs and benefits. Semi-protection reduces vandalism but also blocks constructive editing from IPs. 1RR reduces the complexity and intensity of edit wars, but also makes editing more difficult, forcing all editors to track their reverts, and can make it more difficult to revert somebody who adds a lot of new, poor quality material to an article in multiple edit sessions. Consensus Required eliminates 1RR gaming, but it adds another layer of complexity to editing, forces unwieldy talk page discussions, and it can be a turnoff for editors less invested in the topic area. BRD encourages people to use the talk page, but it also adds more complexity for users who already have rule fatigue. Full protection stops edit wars cold, but also freezes article development. ~Awilley (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC) The overall discussion is about which sanction -- if any -- is preferable, so my question to Mandruss was: what costs does he see in each course of action? His original comment seemed to be saying that multiple choices weren't necessary because of the costs involved, which begs the question of which sanction he saw as the least costly - a question he refused to respond to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer Option 3 from a non-admin point of view, as I think it presents the rules the most clearly to the users who may be involved in the edit war. This isn't just about admin actions, this should be focused on presenting users who may not be familiar with the encyclopaedia the norms by which they can be sanctioned, and I think the consensus required does that best. SportingFlyer T·C 01:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6. @TonyBallioni:, you say above that in your opinion an admin should be able to use Consensus Required or any sanction they think works, including Enforced BRD or no page-level sanction at all. I agree. But there's no option above that lets me decide to use no sanction at all. If I should look at a page and decide it shouldn't have a page-level sanction, then that's only something that happens in my head. It does not in any way prevent another admin from applying CR or whatever an hour later. They'd probably want to respect the decision taken by another admin, but they can't, because they don't know about it. IMO we should institute "no page-level sanction" as a formal alternative, and have a template for it. If A puts this on a talkpage, and B wants to have an actual page sanction, B would presumably go to A's talkpage and they can discuss it. (PS, speaking more personally, I hate all page-level sanctions except possibly 1RR. I think they're only good for gotcha AE reports.) Bishonen | talk 11:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC).

That is a problem with the DS system...it only allows for the escalation of sanctions. Even if I just wanted to have 1RR on a page I couldn't prevent another admin from adding consensus required or something on top of that. And since we're on the subject, there are a lot of things that I don't like about 1RR as a page-level sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• A slight aside, but regarding the Coffee scenario mentioned above, I actually raised this point many moons ago, here, but the thread passed by without further comment. When taken literally, 3RR (and indeed 1RR) are the opposite of BRD because if two parties both use up all of their available reverts, then it's the bold edit that remains rather than the previous status quo. I think it might be useful to refashion 3RR and 1RR so that an initial bold action is also included in the "revert" tallies. That would I suppose bring it more in line with the "consensus required" paradigm.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - The fact that one admin basically made up an extremely meager "alternative" to "consensus required" (i.e. actual enforced BRD), had the audacity to term it "BRD enforced", then apparently made it a personal crusade to systematically implement it is astounding. Shocking, truly. I'm extremely against this utterly-broken and ineffective sanction. I raised the fact that this sanction seemed asinine after witnessing a flow-blown edit war play out, allowable under this sanction. And the admin responsible actually said that this was intended under this sanction. Bizarre. We, as a system, should absolutely not stand behind this dreadful restriction. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

How can a new user delete articles?

LABSJAY screwed up article names of Philippine presidents, now in supposedly birth names (or made up birth names) instead of the WP:NC ones. He did this by deleting some articles to make way for moves, such as this one. How is this possible? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: its only possible when the target of a move is a page with 1 revision, and that revision is a redirect to the source of the move. It was built so that page-move vandalism could be reverted (A -> B leaves a redirect at A, but that redirect can be deleted by moving B -> A) --DannyS712 (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...good to know. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Howard the Duck, part of this is a rather recent change. While everyone's been able to do this for years and years, it's only recently that such actions started getting logged as deletions. For years and years, such actions didn't get logged anywhere; if you redirected A to B and then moved B to A, your original edit simply disappeared and couldn't be recovered. The only way to know that a redirect existed there was in the article's history: the move summary for the page move edit would say "moved page A to B over redirect" instead of "moved page A to B". Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

IPs try to Wikipedia:Vandalism

Please check IP 89.165.99.58 edits [[42]] 2 and 188.159.243.114 + ++ and 188.158.118.65 + in Book of Dede Korkut, this IP try to Wikipedia:Vandalism and dont pay attention to notes and discuss page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtirenji (talk • contribs) 13:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the link being added by Rtierenji is spam. Therefore, I've reverted the user's last edit (they've been edit-warring about the link with an IP) and issued an only warning to the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock User:Legacypac ?

I propose that User:Legacypac be unblocked without any specific conditions other than civility, which is always required (although not always enforced). Legacypac was indefinitely blocked on 27 April 2019 for insulting User:BrownHairedGirl, basically for being reasonable rather than fanatical about the deletion of portals. (That is, BHG wasn’t being fanatical when Legacypac was, although they had sort of the same objective, of getting rid of portalcrud.) Legacypac has been blocked for more than two months and should be unblocked for time served, knowing that any future blocks are also likely to be at least for a month. If Legacypac primarily edited in article space, they would have already been unblocked with the vacuous comment that they were an “excellent content creator”. Legacypac isn’t about to apologize, and insincere apologies should not be expected, but only another chance will indicate whether Legacypac can resume making mostly constructive contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If the user wants to be unblocked, they can...wait for it...make an unblock request. We're not going to unblock them because you think they should be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon was kind enough to ask me about this on my talk page when he was mulling over this request. Here's what I wrote:[43]

A few thoughts:

• I'm a great believer in the principle that justice needs to be independent: guilt should be assessed, and punishment decided, by the community rather than bu the victim. So as the target of his attacks, I think it's best that I refrain from comment on the sentencing.
• I also don't expect him to apologise. It's just not the way he rolls.
• The final incident which led to his block was the culmination of a month or so of sniping because he is not comfortable with the sort of reasoned discussion which admits complexity or nuance, and in which facts may change. That is a part of a pattern I have seen with LP at several other venues (including AFD & CFD): he makes his mind up early in a simplistic binary way, and once he has assigned something to a category he doesn't change his mind even if it becomes clear that he has been mistaken about something possibly crucial. This makes him a disruptive type of force in some broadly-predictable circumstances. That seems to me to be the main issue which the community needs to consider: if he returns, how can he avoid the types of situation which he handles badly, and which led him down a path to that final blocakble event?. But as above, I will make observations, but I shouldn't be part of that call.

Hope that helps.

I don't have anything to add to that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23 is right; I see no reason to consider an appeal by someone besides the blocked user. Setting that aside for a minute, my approach to most block and ban appeals is that the sanctioned user needs to convince the community that the behavior they were sanctioned for won't repeat itself. Even if we were to consider request, I see no evidence that the incivility would cease. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• We do not consider third-party unblock appeals except in exceptional circumstances. This isn’t one. No comments on the merits of any potential appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac would need to put an unblock request himself. If he did, there's a good chance I'd support it but I'd need to look in to things before I made up my mind. Reyk _YO! 19:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac needs to make a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. If Robert would like to discuss that with LP as a way to move this forward, that would be fine, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would voice opposition to Legacypac being unblocked. Every single instance of interaction I've had with him indicates the user is not the sort of user who can keep themselves from going off the rails. They are toxic, and - respectfully - I feel that if the user is unblocked, they will undoubtedly get themselves blocked again within a few months. Is there a point where we just say, 'we cannot be your therapy device' and let the person go their own way? I mean, the user's block log pretty much says it all. The user is bad for Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed, his block log pretty much says it all, with unblock entries like No administrator wants this block and general sentiment is block was too harsh or unneeded, and that "legal threats" block, about which the blocking administrator later wrote: I sincerely apologize for having made this mistake ... I appreciate that several admins ... corrected my inappropriate action. Despite that, I agree with everyone else that standard unblock procedure should be followed rather than a third-party request at AN. – Levivich 21:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• As others have said, he needs to make the unblock request himself. I see no reason to depart from that principle here. Mackensen (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the above observations. Robert does not have the standing to appeal a sanction or request relief from sanctions for Legacypac. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate categories by User:Shadowbryan25

Hello administrators, this is an urgent message. Some newly registered user goes by the name of User:Shadowbryan25 has made a first edit on June 20, 2019. But unfortunately, the user has misused Wikipedia by adding "People from" categories. For an example Sidney Crosby's article has added "People from Halifax, Nova Scotia" but there is already "Sportspeople from Halifax, Nova Scotia". The guideline on a category's occupation is only put Sportspeople of Male actors categories only not "People from" categories. To any administrators, could you investigate all of User:Shadowbryan25's edit contributions if any article contains a people from category. Remove the People from category immediately. If Shadowbryan25 continues to restore the people from categories warn the user for a possible block. Thanks for the important message. I will be happy to an administrator for a reply. Thank you. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This doesn't look like a particularly urgent issue, and you should have tried to engage the user on their talk page before bringing the issue here. creffett (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)