Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| 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 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 13 sockpuppet investigations
- 18 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
- 65 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 8 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requesting RfC be re-opened
An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened.
- The RfC was closed Nov 29. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([1][2]) or MOS:WEASEL ([3]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.
- Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.
- Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([4][5]) but never got a response.
- It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").
Vote counts
|
|---|
|
Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.")
|
What the BBC source says
|
|---|
|
SB's version says
The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness. |
VR talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process
"is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog."
Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:
"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."
- And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Re-openRe-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly support
work[-ing] together toward a proposal
that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)- I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly support
The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".
The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:
[1]"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."
”[2]"disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."
[3]"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."
[4]"A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."
"Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."
[6]"The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."
[7]"“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."
[8]"The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."
These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:
- SB's version misrepresenting the sources that say MEK is a cult (concern raised during RfC)
- SB's weasel wording equating scholarly sources to newspaper op-eds (raised during RfC[10]). Academic consensus is clear that MEK is a cult. Even SB admitted that no source dismisses the cult claim.
- Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:
- A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
|
|---|
|
References
|
- Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich harass/hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Unblock request for MindSlayer13
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- UTRS appeal #37905
- Related ANI thread.
MindSlayer13 was blocked most recently on 2020-10-28 By @Johnuniq: for disruption, unsourced edits, and non responsiveness. They made a number of uninsightful unblock requests, and @Voice of Clam: removed talk page access. They have requested unblocking at UTRS.
Starting with this post-I asked for greater detail and user responded thusly-Yes with due respect I know what I have been blocked for. I have neen blocked disruptive editing, not adding sources & failing to respond to other wiki users. I can assure you I will be not doing the things I have done before. Will try to make wiki a better place. I know as users we have responsibilities which I have failed to sometimes. Everyone deserves a chance and I assure I will not be repeating the mistakes. Thanks
As the block was imposed in response to the ANI discussion, I requested a response to that thread. User replied,It was unconstructive as I edited without mentioning source, failed to respond to users when they asked to clarify, in the future I when editing articles I would provide source wherever needed, & have a healthy discussion with the other users what to edit & what not.
So I couldn't respond to those users because I was not active for some reasons, and to be honest I open the notifications very little, that's the reason I was unresponsive, and the thing they were telling about my name is a coincidence, The earlier name was a silly spelling mistake of my real name, later on instead of again putting my real name with correct spelling, I changed the username completely. They mistook it thinking I was changing my identity. Yes I agree I didn't give sources, the edit in Surchandra Singh, and moving Scott Neville to AFC player were actually true and genuine, the other user thought it to be disruptive cause I didn't put any source. The edit I did at Mohun Bagan page, I heard it from various websites so I did it which I shouldn't have as there was already a discussion going on the talk page. I am so sorry for the mistake.
- Presented for your consideration. User does not have talk page access but is prepared to respond via UTRS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've restored talk page access to allow them to make another unblock request on their talk page. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to unblock, but VoC had expressed a preference for bringing it here. Certainly this unblock request is better than the prior unblock requests. I believe appellant has learned from this and will edit productively moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I may be mistaken but I thought the rule was that if someone was blocked after a community discussion, they could only be unblocked by another discussion. I may be wrong though, and I don't have time at present to look it up so feel free to overrule me. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is where ANI can be confusing. Johnuniq blocked as an admin action, not as the result of a consensus building process, though it was headed that way. It was not closed as "block indefinitely. However, under the circumstances, it would be best to seek a consensus to unblock. What confuses me is saying user can post an unblock request on their talk page with this thread open. I'd prefer community input as to unblocking anyway. Reduces the risk of me unblocking in a fit of overexuberance. And having parallel unblock discussions is often nightmarish. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I may be mistaken but I thought the rule was that if someone was blocked after a community discussion, they could only be unblocked by another discussion. I may be wrong though, and I don't have time at present to look it up so feel free to overrule me. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- As Deepfriedokra notes above, my block was a simple admin action. The reason an unblock has not yet occurred is that the appeals have not given confidence to the reviewing administrators. It's a bit disappointing that my question at User talk:MindSlayer13#Sources has still not been answered but I have to say that edits like that are standard in fandom topics including sports. I have no objection to an unblock provided MindSlayer13 engages with other editors in the future. English is probably a problem but all that is required is that disputed edits are not repeated without first gaining consensus after discussion on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- This user has been actively socking throughout their unblock request, using both an account User:Hellowiki137 and via logged-out editing. ST47 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- 1)Thanks, @ST47:. Good to know. 2) (from the bottom of my heart, and in my Samuel L. Jackson voice--) W T F ? . I guess I can just go ahead and close this and decline the UTRS. (sotto voce mumblings). 3) You gotta be kiddin; me. It's enough to amke me lose my faith in humanity. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Report on Mirrored7
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Mirrored7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Check Mirrored7's recent contributions. They went on a serial rampage on a bunch of Taylor Swift articles in order to WP:POINT. Their recent edit to the lead of Sweetener (album) was rightly reverted by two other editors (Lydïa (talk · contribs) and Doggy54321 (talk · contribs)), because it was unsourced. So Mirrored7 decided they'd go make disruptive edits on Taylor Swift (to whom they have had shown strong dislike for a reason I don't know) articles with an edit summary of "no sources" whereas in fact they're all perfectly & strongly sourced in the "Music & Lyrics" sections of each of those articles. First and foremost, Mirrored7 didn't cite any source when they added what they added, and that's the fundamental reason why it was removed. Admins, I request you to please look into this. It's tiring honestly. It's impossible to create a discussion with this user because they remove any kind of talk from their user page. They don't wanna learn. They don't seem to understand that you need to source something before you add it to Wikipedia. BawinV (talk)
- Well, first of all it's sourced, sections below. I overreacted a bit, because it seems that there's a bias toward Taylor Swift from this editor and on this site in general. Also, my edits are sourced as needed. I thought by going through the article of album, it would be self-explanatory for certain users, but I guess not. I'm always open for discussion, but how it seems, you are not ready for it. That's also why you need to go to a admin. And can I remember about you distruptive edits on the Ariana Grande you did months ago? Stop trying to make yourself better than I am, because you are clearly NOT. Mirrored7 (talk)
- I'm looking into it. — Wug·a·po·des 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Examples that BawinV gave are just the tip of the iceberg. This user also has an issue with WP:NPOV and WP:EW. For edit warring, they have reverted three times in 24h and then ignored the article (see history of Sweetener (album) from today) multiple times on multiple articles. They have also been blocked for edit warring before. For NPOV, they show a bias towards Ariana Grande, and a hatred towards Taylor Swift. See this edit I made to User talk:Mirrored7 for diffs/examples of bias towards Grande/hatred towards Swift. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- @BawinV and Doggy54321: Have there been further problems that you've noticed? I've checked up on Mirrored's recent contributions and nothing since this report strikes me as a problem, but wanted to check with you since you both know the topic area better than I do. — Wug·a·po·des 22:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: thanks for checking in! No, there haven’t been any problems since this report. I’m assuming in good faith that this user is trying to change for the better.
D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: thanks for checking in! No, there haven’t been any problems since this report. I’m assuming in good faith that this user is trying to change for the better.
- @BawinV and Doggy54321: Have there been further problems that you've noticed? I've checked up on Mirrored's recent contributions and nothing since this report strikes me as a problem, but wanted to check with you since you both know the topic area better than I do. — Wug·a·po·des 22:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Examples that BawinV gave are just the tip of the iceberg. This user also has an issue with WP:NPOV and WP:EW. For edit warring, they have reverted three times in 24h and then ignored the article (see history of Sweetener (album) from today) multiple times on multiple articles. They have also been blocked for edit warring before. For NPOV, they show a bias towards Ariana Grande, and a hatred towards Taylor Swift. See this edit I made to User talk:Mirrored7 for diffs/examples of bias towards Grande/hatred towards Swift. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm looking into it. — Wug·a·po·des 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Mirrored7: I think you should take another look at the message Doggy54321 left on your talk page a few weeks ago. It's genuinely good advice. It's important that we have editors who have multiple points of view, and your perspective on Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande would be valuable for the encyclopedia. However you clearly are being disruptive and if you do not quickly fix your approach I will block you indefinitely. For the sake of clarity, you need to (1) stop edit warring--just pretend the undo button doesn't exist; (2) discuss things calmly on article talk pages--if you need to give yourself a few hours to cool down, do so, there's no rush (3) don't add material to articles if you cannot provide a reliable source--especially avoid primary sources like song lyrics and certainly do not insert your own analysis. Right now, this is friendly advice because I genuinely believe you have a valuable perspective, but if you continue to disrupt the encyclopedia by personalizing disputes you will be blocked. — Wug·a·po·des 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that Mirrored7 has further exercised disruptive editing on Taylor Swift-related articles, most recently 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and Red (Taylor Swift album). As these two articles are on my watchlist, I doubt if this user also exercises disruptive editing on other articles beyond my scope of interest. The issue is, as I observe, that although this user has received various warnings (see this user's talk page history), it seems that they are not open-minded enough to realize their disruptive behaviors, even went so far as to remove others' well-intended, useful advice, HĐ (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Images deletition request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can anyone delete these two files as they are clearly copyright violations:
- File:HUMAYUN SAEED.png it was first published here on 20 August 2018 before upload:https://mobile.twitter.com/aryfilmsary/status/1031792388786802688?
- File:FAHAD MUSTAFA.png it was first published on 21 August 2018 here before upload:https://mobile.twitter.com/showbizandnewz/status/1031959478231552004. Thank You192.142.150.23 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've tagged these files with the appropriate speedy deletion tag. Iffy★Chat -- 10:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Done both deleted. Hut 8.5 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
My name change
Just to be clear, I am NOT changing my name to avoid scrutiny after being unblocked; I’m just changing it because I like the new one better. Also, I don’t want to have a username that is known as “StarWars-speak for ‘attention, I am going to f*** around on your wiki’”... also, I am a fan of The Matrix, that’s why I chose that name. --sithjarjar (talk | contribs | email) 19:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posting this here because I didn’t know where else to put it, I just wanted to say it publicly... --sithjarjar (talk | contribs | email) 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Renamer note: Sorry, 
Not doneThe chosen username is too similar to an existing username or it used to be username of someone else that got renamed: Neo Is The One. Please choose again. You can ping me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Requests for page protection backlog
FWIW, I don't recall having ever seen WP:RfPP this backlogged, with over 40 entries in the queue. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I believe we had sixty a couple of weeks ago, but indeed forty requires immediate action (in the meanwhile, reduced to twenty).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- 65 right now--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification of proposed community ban against Sievert 81
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposed community ban of the user Sievert 81. Please post your thoughts on the proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community ban of Sievert 81. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Fifteen Years An Admin
Fifteen years of adminship, and all I got was this lousy edit. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations! jp×g 01:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congrats and thanks for your work BD2412 Please double your salary immediately :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Double it? I'm going to quintuple it! BD2412 T 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't be greedy. That's grossly excessive, and never mind that you can't set your own salary (this is Wikipedia, not the U.S. Congress). Granting a more reasonable 50% increase, and adjusting for 33% U.S. inflation (since the servers are in the U.S.), I think a fair calculation would be 0 x 1.33 x 1.5 = 0, with further salary review every five years. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just for us newcomers, (2012 what a greenie) and for laughs, what were the admin requirements back in the day? Simon Adler (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- A heartbeat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- (Just a joke, congratulations! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC))
- LOL! I echo BMK's congrats. It looks like you had a record number of supports at the time. The figure still looks healthy in 2020. Respect that you still have the RfA on your userpage. I wonder how many of those original voters are still with us? Simon Adler (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just for us newcomers, (2012 what a greenie) and for laughs, what were the admin requirements back in the day? Simon Adler (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't be greedy. That's grossly excessive, and never mind that you can't set your own salary (this is Wikipedia, not the U.S. Congress). Granting a more reasonable 50% increase, and adjusting for 33% U.S. inflation (since the servers are in the U.S.), I think a fair calculation would be 0 x 1.33 x 1.5 = 0, with further salary review every five years. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Double it? I'm going to quintuple it! BD2412 T 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congrats and thanks for your work BD2412 Please double your salary immediately :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thought this was about a possible film sequel. Congrats! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Film sequel? I assumed it was going to be Out of RfAica. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's not much different from either of those. BD2412 T 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Film sequel? I assumed it was going to be Out of RfAica. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't lie, BD2412--I bet you got tons of abuse since then also. WP:HR considers that as fringe and knocks off 5% of your pay accordingly. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- You have no idea how many keyboards and mice I have gone through in that time. BD2412 T 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations. And hey look you got an congratulation! Merry Christmas! Asartea Talk Contribs! 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh you kids. :) Anyway, congrats from one of your original supporters (no. 29, I see). With your fifteen-year anniversary you are now up to one day of vacation per year and relaxed telecommuting rules. Hey, at least we don't have to Zoom into cabal meetings yet. Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've got you beat by a couple of months. I'm still waiting for somebody to give me my key to the men's room. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's a long time to hold it in! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Got you beat" is a relative term. I have the men's room key. I swiped one from Jimbo at Wikimania. BD2412 T 20:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's a long time to hold it in! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work. Thanks RoySmith as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- 2020 was my 15th year, as well! I want cake!
El_C 09:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- El C, here you go. And congratulations on your 15th anniversary! Merry Christmas! Asartea Talk Contribs! 10:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Targetted off-wiki brigading
Saw a large campaign on reddit to brigade and manipulate pages/voting in the India-Pakistan article space (under WP:ARBIPA sanctions) by Pakistani POVPUSHers (1, 2). They are looking to target articles by first creating legitimate appearing/"benign" accounts then getting to their real work, and have created private subreddits (1 (CTR=Correct The Record), 2) to discuss which specific articles to target. Payments/rewards such as PS5s and computer devices are being offered as well for successful brigading or targeting of articles. Should be on the lookout for such accounts (old/new) and edits in the coming days and months. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bradv, Valereee, Shirt58, NinjaRobotPirate and Primefac please see above. 2402:3A80:112B:1E91:C1DC:8842:F691:28E7 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- El C, L235 and Deepfriedokra 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how "removeddit" works (presumably it scrapes the vote count/etc at the time of a link's removal from Reddit) -- that link shows the submission as having a score of 1 (on Reddit one point is automatically given to a submission by the person who posts it) -- that is to say, if I'm interpreting this correctly, it was deleted from the subreddit without a single person having upvoted it. However, the second link has about 250 upvotes, which may be of more concern (plus it links to this Poast, which seeks to organize people with the opposite POV and has ~150 upvotes). These are probably the ones we should be keeping an eye on. jp×g 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- El C, L235 and Deepfriedokra 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Backlog at WP:PERM/PCR
Please have a look to the backlog of requests at WP:PERM/PCR. Thanks 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte, AmandaNP, Swarm, QEDK, and ToBeFree: as they have handled requests there earlier. 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've responded to a few of them. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- All of them were dealt with. 😢 --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Restore Varidesk during deletion review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It may be prudent to restore Varidesk during its deletion review. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I did that, but having looked at it I've deleted it again, because it looks far too close to a copyvio to me. Quite apart from things like "Vari manufactures 300 products that assemble within minutes and are perfectly suited for flexible workspaces.", "A lower price point makes this Electric Standing Desk a great option for work-from-home" and "The VariDesk Pro Plus™ desktop converter comes fully assembled out of the box", an amount of the text appears to have been paraphrased from the company's own website (and Amazon). Incidentally, there was a G11 speedy-deletion tag applied before it was deleted. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, for the record - there is no requirement that a speedy deletion tag be applied before an admin speedies a page - the admin may speedy on their own initiative without the tag. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
remove tpa from User talk:BAN BREXIT --TheImaCow (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done by User:GeneralNotability, and I've semi'd it as well in case they are considering coming back under another guise. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The most important correction
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mirza qadiyani is not a calipha of islam. You may have to research more about this topic.almost muslim countries are recognize qadiyani as a non-muslim so you must be change it. Thank you for read my msg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.143.107 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I know that this is closed, but just for general awareness - there appears to be some sort of off-wiki campaign regarding the topic of the Caliphate and whether or not this person was a genuine Caliph. There were a number of disruptive edits at RfPP, this comment here, and a veritable flood of tickets at OTRS (I haven't checked the articles in question, but I'm sure they've got their share of problems too). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Might be time to up the protection to ECP soon, since AC-accounts are now appearing on the relevant page too, and I assume this is only going to get worse for the time being. Blablubbs|talk 20:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Already done. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Some extra eyes on related pages, i.e. everyone listed here and Caliphate, might also be useful. Blablubbs|talk 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like this is on google – they display his name when people search for "who is the present caliph of islam". Currently getting attention on Twitter and video platforms. Blablubbs|talk 20:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stupid wrong answers on Google searches seem more common now? XKCD Twitter had some the other week. As noted, that really isn't Wikipedia's problem. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. The Amadiyya are only about 1% of Muslims and are widely seen as heretical. Google then displays the Wikipedia article, leading true believers to conclude that Wikipedia is responsible for the error. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- See Qadiani for some insight into the anger this stirs up. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. The Amadiyya are only about 1% of Muslims and are widely seen as heretical. Google then displays the Wikipedia article, leading true believers to conclude that Wikipedia is responsible for the error. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stupid wrong answers on Google searches seem more common now? XKCD Twitter had some the other week. As noted, that really isn't Wikipedia's problem. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like this is on google – they display his name when people search for "who is the present caliph of islam". Currently getting attention on Twitter and video platforms. Blablubbs|talk 20:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Some extra eyes on related pages, i.e. everyone listed here and Caliphate, might also be useful. Blablubbs|talk 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Already done. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Might be time to up the protection to ECP soon, since AC-accounts are now appearing on the relevant page too, and I assume this is only going to get worse for the time being. Blablubbs|talk 20:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Wrong information being displayed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you search on wikipedia about the present caliph of Islam, it give the answer Mirza Masroor , which is totally false. It will be highly appreciated if correct research is done before adding in information, do your research and correct it ASAP. Thank You so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.209.154 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Sundayclose: bullying and threats of harassment: request for remedy
User:Sundayclose has been bullying me and has now threatened to harass me on one specific article (Immaculate conception). This is not an isolated incident for this user but is indicative of a general approach to other users on Wikipedia - see, e.g., here and here.
This began at the article Immaculate Conception when objected to the phrase "France saw" (as in saw an increase in the popularity of this idea), on the grounds that countries cannot see; I reverted, as the phrase seemed to me to reflect common usage. This was followed by an edit war, and I admit to being at fault in allowing myself to be drawn into this. The real problem is not this trivial matter, but the behavioural issue: to quote another editor who complained about a very similar incident, Sundayclose has "a habit of undoing what [they] [dis?]like and carpet bombing the offending user's talk page with a warning." This has been exactly my experience, culminating in a threat of future harassment on the article Immaculate Conception.
I will be very happy if I never come across this user again. In order to make this happen, I would like an interaction ban on both of us (neither to edit any page edited by the other), including a joint ban from editing Immaculate Conception.Achar Sva (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have fixed your broken link. --JBL (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I really hoped it wouldn't come to this, but Sundayclose has left multiple users – including me – no choice here. All one needs to do is casually scan the last couple of months of his contributions page to see a user with massive WP:OWN problems. The pattern is immediately evident: he comes across an edit he doesn't agree with, immediately reverts and posts a warning to that user's talk page regardless of whether a warning is appropriate or not. Any further interaction then descends to an argument of "it's your responsibility to get consensus, per BRD"—regardless of which side of the BRD cycle he's on. I've had one interaction with the guy, but got a genuine stink of BRD misuse/filibustering. With his talk page on my watchlist for the past week, I've seen this user come into conflict with no less than six other editors, most of which were removed without response. And his latest interaction with an IP is a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
- It's clear he is deliberately misinterpreting the content of several policies – pretty much everything linked in WP:5P4 – to suit his own needs as the situation dictates. If successful, this ANI may result in his first block, but I believe the behavioural issues here deserve a fairly lengthy block. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE, is argumentative, hostile and combative for no damn reason, and genuinely needs some time to reflect on how he interacts with other users. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to offer my two cents to the discussion. Based on the evidence provided by Homeostasis07, I can agree that some of those behavioral problems may need to be looked at. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've not followed the links to the interaction or behaviour at the heart of this thread, but I just want to weigh in on Sundayclose, generally. From my experience with them, going back several years, I have to disagree that their contribution can be reduced to WP:NOTHERE. Working on 1960s music articles as I do, I've seen Sdc tirelessly undoing dozens of nuisance edits – say, to Personnel sections at Beatles song articles, which are magnets for users either obsessively changing credits to what they personally hear/think or are otherwise out to be disruptive. Sdc's an absolute godsend on that front, as far as I'm concerned. I've seen them occasionally be a little to quick to revert, yes, but it's easily solved. I'm not out to negate the subject of this complaint (which, as I say, I haven't even looked into) or others' experience (which sounds very different from mine, obviously). But to imply that Sdc offers nothing but negative input – no way, that's absolutely not true. JG66 (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, Achar Sva, instructions for creating a diff are at Help:Diff and there's a very handy script you can install at User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink.js that makes it dead easy, just click to copy. —valereee (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Achar Sva (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Without having looked into the complaint, I would like to say that I've interacted with Sundayclose before and have found them to be an excellent contributor. The claim by Homeostasis07 that Sundayclose is WP:NOTHERE—meaning Sundayclose is only here to disrupt the project or make unhelpful edits—is obviously wrong and makes it hard for me to take anything else Homeostasis07 says seriously. ― Tartan357 Talk 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- My reference to NOTHERE was with respect to its "Treating editing as a battleground" and "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" points. I accept that he's been around for a long time and has made some valuable contributions to the project. And as an editor primarily of music articles myself for the past decade or so, I understand it can be frustrating when dealing with the constant barrage of genre-warriors, vandals, obsessive fans inflating sales figures/hyping-up critical consensus, other general nuisances and everything else, but somewhere along the way Sundayclose has developed a supremely uncollaborative attitude, even with genuine and well-meaning users. This is the aspect of his editing behaviour that has us all here. No one is out to "get" him, but he has developed some aggressive habits, and he needs to understand that he has to re-evaluate how he interacts with other users. (I don't add high-traffic pages like this to my watch-list, so please ping if responding to me specifically). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Tartan357 that WP:NOTHERE does not seem apposite, but otherwise Homeostatis07's description accords with my recent interaction with Sundayclose concerning Daniel Kleitman and Erdős–Bacon number; probably the best way to get a sense is to read this talk-page discussion (although it misses the lead-up exchanges that took place elsewhere). --JBL (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Me getting banned
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there any way I can be unbanned from editing Articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelife68 68 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Responded on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Admin help needed with taxonomy template
Please follow the following link and save the result as is:
this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animal lover 666 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Animal lover 666, I'm not sure why I want to save a page as Template:Taxonomy/Edrioasteroidea/?/?/?. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Questionable assignment (two levels). Here we need 3 levels. Animal lover 666 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Animal lover 666: Done seems sane enough. Let me know if it works out. — Wug·a·po·des 00:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. It did need one more bit of tweaking, but I did that myself. Animal lover 666 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Animal lover 666:
- Please see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Questionable assignment (two levels). Here we need 3 levels. Animal lover 666 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
RfC being removed
Gonna need some help. An SPA is deleting an RfC I started. [13] [14] [15]. starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I manually reverted to reinstate the above section, after it was blanked by Bezeq2. This appears to be related to the below section, but as the named party, Bezeq2 should clearly not be removing this comment. Blablubbs|talk 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blablubbs - [16] - user is replacing my comments with impunity. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- This user wants WP community to discuss textbook BLP-Violations with deleted sources that were unpublished by publishers that have no live secondary sources. The false information was already discuss here and edits would be considered are dead links that were removed and unpublished with no live secondary source; also see WP:V, WP:NPF, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BALASP, WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored the RFC. There is no copyright violation. That the links that the story (in 2013) are no longer working doesn't mean that the news source redated them, and we do not require "live" secondary links for this type of information; the use of something like archive.org for the original links is 100% in line for sourcing. Further, on talk pages to discuss BLP matters, this type of situation is clearly allowed, per WP:BLPTALK. The BLP/N discussion you cite addresses the problem with using elements like court documents and the like to source those crimes, but these are reliable news sources and that's a wholly different matter. --Masem (t) 15:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- And I have partially-blocked Bezeq2 from the talk page in question for a couple of days for edit-warring over the RfC. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored the RFC. There is no copyright violation. That the links that the story (in 2013) are no longer working doesn't mean that the news source redated them, and we do not require "live" secondary links for this type of information; the use of something like archive.org for the original links is 100% in line for sourcing. Further, on talk pages to discuss BLP matters, this type of situation is clearly allowed, per WP:BLPTALK. The BLP/N discussion you cite addresses the problem with using elements like court documents and the like to source those crimes, but these are reliable news sources and that's a wholly different matter. --Masem (t) 15:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- This user wants WP community to discuss textbook BLP-Violations with deleted sources that were unpublished by publishers that have no live secondary sources. The false information was already discuss here and edits would be considered are dead links that were removed and unpublished with no live secondary source; also see WP:V, WP:NPF, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BALASP, WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blablubbs - [16] - user is replacing my comments with impunity. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The sources mentioned by Bezeq2 all have archived versions. News reporting websites frequently allow stories to go stale, and archived versions of the same story are just as acceptable as one that is "live". WP:DEADLINK deals with how to resolve linkrot. Bezeq2's rationale for blanking that is nonsense and blanking an RfC and noticeboard report is deliberately abusive. ♟♙ (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
What are the rules for copyrighted content
How much of a article is considered "copying copyrighted content"? Thanks. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) See WP:COPYWITHIN. All article content is copyrighted and proper attribution information needs to be maintained when content is copied within Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Better to ask "is there a word limit." Bezeq2 (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you're referring to copying from other websites, you shouldn't copy anything at all, with certain exceptions. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Please see our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- As far as an article being a copyright issue (i.e. something that would qualify for WP:G12), I always view that as a question of "would there be something left after I removed the violation?" If the answer is "less than a few sentences" then it should be G12'd, but if you can keep the lead intact and a paragraph of two, it should be trimmed and a {{revdel}} requested. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you all I thought I was correct and you have confirmed. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- As far as an article being a copyright issue (i.e. something that would qualify for WP:G12), I always view that as a question of "would there be something left after I removed the violation?" If the answer is "less than a few sentences" then it should be G12'd, but if you can keep the lead intact and a paragraph of two, it should be trimmed and a {{revdel}} requested. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you're referring to copying from other websites, you shouldn't copy anything at all, with certain exceptions. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Please see our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Better to ask "is there a word limit." Bezeq2 (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
For context, it is worth noting that it appears the OP of this post had an AN thread filed against them presumably relating to the same matter as this. They removed that without summary and then posted this 2 minutes later. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like Blablubbs has restored that thread above, and starship.paint posted it again below, all at the same timestamp as me typing this. Interesting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- That was not intentional and I havent knowledge of anything filed against me. I would not do knowingly. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- [17] ^ ?! starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's hard to buy that the initial removal at AN was an edit conflict, as no content was added in the same edit (that was added in a separate edit) - marked minor too, interestingly. And the removal on a particular admin's talk (User talk:Deepfriedokra), some admin starship chose at random from active admins, whilst it could be an edit conflict if you started writing before one posted, it's hard to buy that you both chose the same admin to deal with your dispute. Even AGF this seems like an attempt to evade scrutiny. Not necessarily saying that your removal is right or wrong - I haven't really looked into it - but removing attempts to seek admin review is obviously problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- [17] ^ ?! starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- That was not intentional and I havent knowledge of anything filed against me. I would not do knowingly. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, also note that a RFPP for this talk page has been filed by Bezeq2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have some trouble believing that, since blanking others' comments seems to be something that you do with some regularity. Interested parties will also want to make note of the fact that both Bezeq2 and the preceeding account, Bezeq1, are single-purpose accounts and of this recent story on Wikipediocracy. Blablubbs|talk 14:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Question: , one SPI investigation closed & archived, one RFPP declined & redirected here, two threads on User talk:Deepfriedokra redirected here - are there any more WP:MULTI variations of this dispute? Cabayi (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)- {{Checkuser needed}} can we get a check here? This does not seem like a new editor, and at least some of this is disruptive and evading scrutiny. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- If my edits are not wanted that is fine. But this is my only account. I was Bezeq1. But I lost my password. That is why I create Bezeq2. I have said this. Also I read the policy and put in my edits. Only reason I am interested in topic is because I read the book. Bezeq2 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- RTFM may well apply. Requesting a check doesn't mean all of your edits are unwanted, but many of the principles of WP:SOCK have nothing to do with all (or even any) edits being disruptive in and of themselves (eg WP:SCRUTINY). Many of the subtleties of your behaviour do not add up, but apologies if I'm mistaken. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- If my edits are not wanted that is fine. But this is my only account. I was Bezeq1. But I lost my password. That is why I create Bezeq2. I have said this. Also I read the policy and put in my edits. Only reason I am interested in topic is because I read the book. Bezeq2 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Inconclusive due to extensive use of proxies. ST47 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't editing through proxies generally disallowed on Wikipedia without special permission? ♟♙ (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not technically; open proxies are allowed until blocked. See Wikipedia:Open proxies. A possibly relevant passage, though: When a Checkuser detects that an account has been using open proxies, this information may be considered when evaluating suspicions of sock puppetry or other editing abuses. If there is an appearance that an account has been using open proxies to circumvent policy, the account may be blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't editing through proxies generally disallowed on Wikipedia without special permission? ♟♙ (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability - a new user, Red Maple Leaves, has removed the disputed content [18]. Wonder how they found the page. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am a new user. Nice to meet you. I found the page by browsing, either by "random article" or where feedback was asked for. I reverted the content until a discussion has time to take place. It has been less than 24 hours. While there is no limit or minimum for these as I recently read, perhaps it may be a good idea for other viewpoints to be heard. I plan to vote for this content in the morning as I am about to head off to sleep. But I want to evaluate the material in full. I am new so forgive any errors or lack of speed. Thank you for getting in touch. :) Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ha! Try harder next time. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Try harder staying awake? Not sure what you mean. Have a good night. Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Red Maple Leaves. I'm wide awake and am currently having my second cup of coffee for the day. I too have some concerns here. It seems like an odd coincidence that your account, which was created 84 minutes after GeneralNotability blocked three obvious sockpuppets, randomly found its way to a highly controversial article – either because the random page button miraculously presented you with that one, instead of one of our 6+ million other ones, or because you picked it out of a list of 16 open RfCs, which is something new users generally don't do. It also strikes me as odd that you chose to make your first substantial edits on said article after doing a bunch of gnoming tasks, with your second edit to the article being the partial reinstatement of a previous sock edit. I just cannot help but hear the characteristic noise of a certain avian species. Blablubbs|talk 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Red Maple Leaves is now blocked; three guesses why and the first two don't count. Article semi'd for a month. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Red Maple Leaves. I'm wide awake and am currently having my second cup of coffee for the day. I too have some concerns here. It seems like an odd coincidence that your account, which was created 84 minutes after GeneralNotability blocked three obvious sockpuppets, randomly found its way to a highly controversial article – either because the random page button miraculously presented you with that one, instead of one of our 6+ million other ones, or because you picked it out of a list of 16 open RfCs, which is something new users generally don't do. It also strikes me as odd that you chose to make your first substantial edits on said article after doing a bunch of gnoming tasks, with your second edit to the article being the partial reinstatement of a previous sock edit. I just cannot help but hear the characteristic noise of a certain avian species. Blablubbs|talk 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Try harder staying awake? Not sure what you mean. Have a good night. Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ha! Try harder next time. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am a new user. Nice to meet you. I found the page by browsing, either by "random article" or where feedback was asked for. I reverted the content until a discussion has time to take place. It has been less than 24 hours. While there is no limit or minimum for these as I recently read, perhaps it may be a good idea for other viewpoints to be heard. I plan to vote for this content in the morning as I am about to head off to sleep. But I want to evaluate the material in full. I am new so forgive any errors or lack of speed. Thank you for getting in touch. :) Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: [19] This RFC has been removed pending review from the OS team, T&S, and Wikimedia Legal. If you are aware of the contents of this RFC, please do not re-add or otherwise discuss this matter until it has been resolved.
starship.paint (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Arrrrgh!
{Cough} Ahem, there's a small backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, if any would like to look. I would, but my stomach has made other plans. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unblock request by The Image Editor
The Image Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Image Editor was blocked indefinitely on November 16 for persistent disruptive editing. The reason for their block was repeated edit warring over lead images, including replacing some with copyrighted files that they'd uploaded to Commons with incorrect/insufficient licensing, attribution, and/or source information. Most of their edit history has consisted of changing lead images. The block was imposed by Oshwah as the result of a unanimous consensus reached in this discussion I started at WP:ANI. The consensus was clear for some sort of sanction, though nothing specific was decided upon. The Image Editor is now requesting that their block be lifted, and has acknowledged the reasons for their block. I believe that they have served their time and are genuinely interested in contributing constructively, so I am endorsing their request and starting this discussion on their behalf. I do so without prejudice towards a topic ban on changing lead images. Please discuss The Image Editor's request with them at User talk:The Image Editor#WP:AN discussion of unblock request. Pinging participants in ANI discussion: Sundayclose, GoodDay, HeartGlow30797, Sphilbrick, Johnbod, Laser brain, Beyond My Ken. ― Tartan357 Talk 15:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- If he's promised to behave, then by all means 'unblock'. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Tartan357, I'm not opposed. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've thought about it, and I guess I have no opinion one way or the other, as long as The Image Editor understands that if they're unblocked, and they return to their previous behavior, the indef that is likely to follow will be a lot more difficult to have lifted -- so walking the straight-and-narrow path is their best choice if they want to continue editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Admin control over fota
What's is violating the apache attribution creative commons liscense.. Or mdm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5000:B64:5CF9:7141:ED6A:4C24 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do not understand what is being said. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Self-requested blocks for Doppelgänger accounts
Because my username is pretty easy to impersonate, I've created a bunch of Doppelgänger accounts to prevent that; since they're not supposed to ever edit, could an admin please block:
- BIablubbs (BIABLUBBS)
- BlabIubbs (BLABIUBBS)
- BIabIubbs (BIABIUBBS)
- Blabblubs
- BIabbIubs (BIABBIUBS)
- BIabblubs (BIABBLUBS)
- Blabbiubs (messed up the capitalisation here, but the account creation form prevents registration of the username with a capital I anyway)
Please turn off autoblock so I don't have to go on an involuntary wikibreak. Thanks in advance and best, Blablubbs|talk 13:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've been telling Blablubbs for ages that with all of their RedWarn usage, statistically they'd end up blocked sooner or later...and now I've blocked them seven times!) GeneralNotability (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, GeneralNotability. I know you're eagerly awaiting the day that WP:Sockpuppet Investigations/Blablubbs finally turns into a bluelink, but you ought to give me credit where it's due: At least I tagged these myself. Blablubbs|talk 14:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think a username change might have been quicker. ;) —valereee (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability, you apparently forgot to block Blablubbs. ;) No such user (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think a username change might have been quicker. ;) —valereee (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, GeneralNotability. I know you're eagerly awaiting the day that WP:Sockpuppet Investigations/Blablubbs finally turns into a bluelink, but you ought to give me credit where it's due: At least I tagged these myself. Blablubbs|talk 14:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
want to remove IP address from history
accidentally left edited a page with my IP visible. please help to remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeeditor11 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org with either the IP or a link to the change where your IP was exposed, and we can hide it for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at your contributions history I think I was able to figure out where it happened. If you're not referring to the edits to Bhai Mardana, please email the address above and let us know. If you were, then you're all set. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Banned for a week due to a baseless accusation that was unjustifiable
Hello Wikipedia Administrators,
I want to apologize in advanced if I am using any incorrect protocol for creating this discussion thread or if I am out of line at all for this, but I wanted to address an issue and get your opinions on something that has been frustrating me and had arose last week. I admittedly was having an edit-war dispute with another individual by the name of "Kansas Bear" (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kansas_Bear) on the "Aq Qoyunlu" wikipedia page (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aq_Qoyunlu). As I've mentioned in the "Talk" section of that article, my primary and only dispute was the fact that in the "Common Language" section at the time, it directly insinuated that the Azerbaijani language was used strictly in poetry only. The reason as to how I ended up onto the Aq Qoyunlu Wikipedia page in the first place was because I was indulging in a civil conversation with another user on the social media site Reddit, where we were discussing this particular dynasty in general. I visited the Wikipedia page after our conversation, and saw something which appeared at the, troublesome. On a side note as well, now it is insinuating that the Azerbaijani and Persian were used only in poetry, and this only brings confusion to readers who stumble upon this page. ANYWAYS, this user; Kansas Bear, out of nowhere creates a thread topic hours later (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikiNutt/Archive) and accuses me of being an individual by the name of "Relurgotov".
I have absolutely no affiliation with that user and have never heard of him before. I am also not coordinating any attacks whatsoever with any other individual as that investigation suggests out of thin air, period. One of the Wikipedia Administrators (Oshwah) thankfully mentions that he verified that I am not that user, "Unrelated as far as technical evidence goes". Another Wikipedia Administrator, however, named "GeneralNotability" (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeneralNotability) enters and says the following,
"Clerk note: Unrelated technically, but almost certainly coordinating. Since they're clearly tag-teaming to edit war, I'm treating them as meatpuppets. WikiNutt blocked one week, Relurgotov Blocked without tags"
I was banned for one week as a result of this. The ban was lifted yesterday, but I'm overall unhappy about this situation and personally feel that perhaps moderator privilege's were abused in this regard. I saw that on GeneralNotability main page, he lists that he's available on Discord and I reached out to him (see this link: https://i.imgur.com/AZroElX.png). I unfortunately still have not heard back from him. I'm just disappointed by the action taken against me, that such a baseless accusation resulted in me getting banned for a week. It wasn't fair, it wasn't just, there was no evidence, and it was baseless in all regards. I do not understand where he drew the connection and dots that I am "almost certainly coordinating" an attack and am a "meatpuppet". With all due respect, I found some comedy in this accusation but I also became infuriated at the same time. I am also now on the Wikipedia Discord channel and have verified my identity there. If you would like to reach out on any other platform, talk on phone, email, etc., you let me know as I am open to discuss this subject with anyone - in a civil open manner. I can provide anything you wish of me and would just like to clear my name in general, because as of now, I'm still accused of being that individual as seen on his page when I click on it (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relurgotov).
Thank you all for your time, stay safe and happy holidays!
WikiNutt (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- WikiNutt, did the conversation on Reddit discuss the Wikipedia pages in question? Quick note: I have notified GeneralNotability of this discussion on your behalf; please do so yourself when bringing people up on administrative noticeboards – it's required. Blablubbs|talk 10:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Blablubbs, and thanks for taking interest in my post! My short and simple answer is absolutely not - I didn't mention the Wikipedia page whatsoever, we were just discussing various dynasties in the area during those periods in history. There isn't a single soul that knows that I on occasion, edit on Wikipedia. None of my friends, nobody on discord, nobody on Reddit, etc. On the internet, I use different usernames on all these platforms, so I can't be directly associated from other platforms to this Wikipedia account of mine and it's never been something that I've mentioned to anybody at all period. WikiNutt (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- WikiNutt, okay then. Two disclaimers: I am a) not an administrator and have b) worked together with GeneralNotability in the past, so there may be implicit bias here. What I can offer you is an attempt at an explanation of why you were blocked:
- On 22 November 2020, Relurgotov made these two sequental edits, which were quickly reverted by Beshogur. A few days later, you, in turn reinstated Relurgotov's edits.
- A similar thing happened on another article, where Relurgotov made this edit on 8 December, was reverted by Kansas Bear, only for you to reinstate the edit once more.
- Although agreeing with other people is of course allowed, it's understandable that this makes people suspicious. Relurgotov has an extremely low number of contributions; the likelihood that they would make two controversial edits on two occasions, only for them to get reverted and then reinstated by you (which, by the way, may be construed as approaching or constituting edit warring), is quite low. It seems reasonable to assume, then, that there is a relationship between those two accounts – the options being either sockpuppetry (disruptive use of multiple accounts by one person) or meatpuppetry (off-wiki coordination to influence on-wiki processes), which is likely why the sockpuppet investigation was filed. While Oshwah didn't produce positive CU results, that does not preclude the occurence of sockpuppetry that isn't detectable by technical measures, or indeed the occurence of meatpuppetry. Checkuser is just one datapoint out of many. Given how common the occurence of sock- and meatpuppetry is, especially in contentious topic areas such as the one you are editing in, making the conclusion that there is some link between two accounts based on behaviour alone seems reasonable, and I don't think that GeneralNotability is the only person who would have made that call. Whether this is a "good block" is for others to decide, but it is certainly an understandable one. On a final note, I think you were a little too quick here – judging from the timestamps, you waited about 24 hours between your initial attempt at contacting GN and opening this thread. We should keep in mind that Wikipedia is a hobby – people may be working, sleeping, or simply busy with other stuff, whether on- or offwiki. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I also want to add that sock- and meatpuppetry are usually sanctioned in similar or identical ways; since they lead to equally undesirable outcomes for the encyclopaedia, we often treat them as functionally identical. Blablubbs|talk 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- WikiNutt, okay then. Two disclaimers: I am a) not an administrator and have b) worked together with GeneralNotability in the past, so there may be implicit bias here. What I can offer you is an attempt at an explanation of why you were blocked:
- Thanks for the prompt response. Taking a look at the "View History" section of the Aq Qoyunlu page, it now makes sense where and why "Relurgotov" came up from (see pic: https://i.imgur.com/FZjF6pc.png). His or her username at the time was completely irrelevant to me and I did not pay an inkling or attention into remember who this user was. So hearing that I was accused of being the individual caught me by complete and questionable surprise. Regarding the edited material, I want to openly note that I agreed with that said users edits on that topic and that I still agree with them. It's an unfortunate coincidence for me though that the user happened to have edited and involved him or herself on that page the same day as me.
- I adamantly maintain the personal truth that I am not that user, have no affiliation with that user, and am completely open (nothing to hide) about my own personal identity and can further in-depth discuss things with anyone further on any other platform to prove it, if they wish. I browse Wikipedia on a daily basis reading many articles, primarily because of convenience. This page, after reading it, personally stuck out to me because of what it insinuated in the side section of the article and what I know about these various dynasties (of same or similar origins from these same time periods). Recent edits to this article (right now) have made things even more confusing for outside readers who stumble onto the page than it did before as well (referring to when I reverted one of the editions). I don't contribute or edit any of the physics, mathematics or general science articles on Wikipedia. I find those articles in particular to be spectacular, on point and well cited. There isn't really much room for there to exist any impartiality for religious, ethnic or racial biases. However, topics revolving around politics, ethnic identity and history of certain dynasties, at certain times appear to be brigaded by certain biased and impartial parties. I've noted this by looking through the "View History" section at times. In addition, sources at times, cited in these articles are also derived from biased or questionable organizations as well who are not impartial on the topic at hand (usually seen in articles about recent wars and political disputes). With regards to questioning certain cited sources, I will take that to the "Talk" section to discuss and not pester you guys about it.
- But I'm going to however insist here with you about disagreeing with the fact that what I have done nothing to warrant a one-week block. There was zero evidence to have suggested I am that user or affiliated in some manner with that user, and the sockcheck? (I believe it's an IP check) should have been sufficient enough. I'm my personal ISP, my internet provider is Comcast and I can reveal any more details if needed that I have nothing to hide. Claiming that I was "coordinating attacks" with that individual is unsubstantiated, groundless and just plain unfair. The time that user made his edit and the time I made my edit (reversion) don't even coincidence together. The user made the post on 06:06, 8 December 2020 (not sure what 06:06 represents in the standard American 12-hour clock) and my reversion was at 21:59, 8 December 2020 - it appears to be many hours apart. It should lastly be well noted, that people happen to have concurring views over various political and historical topics. I do again reiterate that I agree that the pure coincidence that this user edited the same day can be perceived as suspicious from you guys, but I think the verdict was unjust and I shouldn't have been banned for a week. Even as of now, when I click on that persons account page, my username pops up where it claims I'm that user "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiNutt) -- ????????????. Just freaking ridiculous at the end of the day, I say.
- Anyways, thanks for hearing me out... WikiNutt (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- So. Kansas Bear filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiNutt last week. Oshwah performed a checkuser investigation and found at WikiNutt and found them unrelated. Reviewing the diffs (particularly this and this), I saw that both were trying to make the same change on Aq Qoyunlu, to the point of Relurgotov removing text, being reverted, and then WikiNutt showing up later that day (to an article they'd never edited before) to undo the revert. That, to me, suggested that they were in some way working together, and since checkuser came back negative I treated them as meatpuppets working together to edit-war. Could my judgement be wrong? Absolutely. The determination of meatpuppetry, in the end, a judgment call based on a fairly limited set of data, and we can only say how things look, not determine what's actually happening behind the scenes. If I was wrong about that, I apologize to WikiNutt and Relurgotov, and if other admins do not think that the call of meatpuppetry is correct then by all means unblock Relurgotov and censure me in whatever way you find appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding Discord - I generally don't answer unsolicited PMs there (or on IRC, for that matter), and that goes double for block discussions. Unless private evidence is involved, I think that any discussion relating to a block should stay on-wiki. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate the truthfulness and honesty in your post. I was angry at the ban, but your apology was more than enough and I respect that you're offering it in the first place. I also apologize for personally reaching out to you on Discord, I really didn't think you'd mind at all and I find it to be far more interpersonal and easier to communicate and come to an understanding when talking one-to-one, especially in a voice chat environment for instance. Less room for conflict as well. What's done is done and I would only appreciate it now if I wasn't associated and affiliated with that other user. Truthfully speaking as well, I don't really care about what happens to that user or who that user is, but I don't want to be associated with someone who is accused of abusing multiple accounts. I don't view it fair for me and I don't want my username here to be tarnished any further as it currently stands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relurgotov.
- I however still want to raise the issue of this user "User:Kansas Bear", who I feel instigated and created this entire mess in the first place. It was this user who baselessly accused me in the first place, which got the moderators involved in something that I think shouldn't of happened in the first place. I agree and take personal responsibility that the user Kansas Bear and I were within the limited time-period, "edit-warring" with one another. I agreed with the other user "Relurgotov" and he didn't. I've personally moved things to the "Talk" section of that article.
- Anyways, between you and I GeneralNotability, I'm glad we came to some form of understanding and everything between us is good from my perspective once the association between me and "Relugotov" is broken. Regards, WikiNutt (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Edit count of "1" ..?
Sorry if this is a stupid question. I just happened onto User:Crusio's page which shows an edit count of one even though he seems to have been active at least between 2008 and 2010 as documented here and here.
best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- KaiKemmann, [20] - at some point old-Crusio was renamed...and then the same day someone created an account with the same name as a placeholder. I have no explanation for that. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- The simplest explanation is that old-Crusio created the placeholder post-rename to prevent anyone from usurping their old account name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Suspicious Activities - December 2020
The last two weeks I'm trying to edit two articles and on both my sources were discredited, deleted, disputed by same two editors Jingiby and StoyanStoyanov80. First article is Bitola Inscription, second article is Drama Uprising. In order to discredit my sources and win a better position on the talk page, in both situations I've noticed suspicious activity by both of them - that is creating or editing an separate articles on which they call out in these two talk pages (Bitola Inscription and Drama Uprising),in order to discredit an author and to misrepresent my country (Macedonia) past, as communist country and regime of highest forms. So, in order to win a dispute on talk page on Bitola Inscription, the user Jingiby created this article: Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour, trying to misrepresent my country as some communist regime dictatorship that didn't allow the citizens to declare their nationality, in order to win a position and push his POV in this article and talk page about Bitola Inscription. When I prove him wrong and when I point out about these activities to one admin on the Drama uprising talk page, he (Jingiby) deleted the part of the talk page on Bitola Inscription and all of a sudden agreed to change the article that he was defending for several days without any consensus or whatsoever. The deleted part was called "Pande Eftimov" (please check the history of the Talk page). On the second article about Drama Uprising, similar/same thing happened with the user StoyanStoyanov80, he calls out for this article to discredit the author Andrew Rossos, but when I saw the editorial history of Andrew Rossos article, I run on their two names Jingiby and StoyanStoyanov80 - edits done the previous two weeks, in order to win out better position on the Talk page on Drama Uprising, in order to delete my sources and push their POV. I don't know how their editing patterns are called or whether they are allowed (which I highly doubt that they are allowed), therefore I ask for Admins help to explain me whether I'm victim of editors suspicious behavior and where should I report them or is it enough that I created this Talk topic and Admin will take care of the rest? Thank you. --Forbidden History (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Forbidden History, For starters, you ignored the big red letters that tell people to notify those they open cases against. I have done so on your behalf.
- Jingiby's edits here are very reasonable and Jingiby has been very helpful to you, yet you seem to be ignoring their sage advice. I have no idea what you mean by "suspicious", but just because somebody disagrees with you/is trying to help you does not make them in the wrong. Unless you provide some more WP:DIFFS that show clearly what the wrong behavior is, it seems there is no issue here.
- You are editing in a very contentious topic area, which requires that you be on your very best behavior. That means using the top quality sources, and getting along with others. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe I have done anything wrong, the admin can decide on that. Just want to point out that this is not the first time that Forbidden History has reported me to the admins.
- StoyanStoyanov80 was reported there, you involved to back him up.--Forbidden History (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- You deleted a part in which you call out an article that you have created few days ago, in order to back yourself up for the article at Bitola Inscription.
- Forbidden History this is the third time that you have done this, please don't post your comment inside of my comment. Thank you. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- You deleted a part in which you call out an article that you have created few days ago, in order to back yourself up for the article at Bitola Inscription.
- Hi everyone. I am sorry if I have affected the User Forbidden History in any way. Otherwise, I understand what he wants to say here, but it sounds more like some kind of conspiracy theory. Jingiby (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, thanks for the reply, I apologize that I did the things without paying proper attention. My aim initially was to get Admins opinion about the problem. I put this as Admin Help on my talk page, but no one replied, therefore I copied and paste the text here. I don't see in which way Jingiby helped me, when he created and edit an articles in order to win a better position at other articles in which he discredits my sources, insults an independent country historiography. I provided my links above about the problem. Please read my problem and let me know if that is Disruptive editing and is it allowed to create new articles or edit existing ones in order to back himself up (stands and views) on Talk pages on some other articles? Is that normal thing and allowed? I'm new at wikipedia and I'm not sure how to provide DIFFS (I provided links to the article pages and to the talk pages, where this problems occured. Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Forbidden History, I fail to see how Jingiby is insulting Macedonia, also that you think that tells me you have some very strong opinions about this topic. Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour needs some more work, but it seems neutral enough; the communist era in the East was a dark time and many terrible things happened, and thankfully that era is over. Your insinuation that Jingiby created it to try to win a dispute on another page is silly, and I'm not sure how that would even be possible. To use diffs, please read the link I gave you that specifically explains how. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek I cannot provide the diffs properly. So, I will try with the links once again.
- First article is this one. In order for him to discredit my sources (printed in 1991 and 1995-which has nothing to do with communism) and to change the nationality of a Macedonian person into Bulgarian, he created this article. After that on the Talk Page, he pointed out this newly created article in order to convince someone that Bulgarians were repressed in Macedonia and they were not allowed to declare their nationality-I proved him wrong by sending him official census results. Here is an older version of the Talk Page on which you can see the discussion about that person (Pande Eftimov).
- In mean time I was working on another article called Drama Uprising. On that article, similar thing was done by StoyanStoyanov80. Him and Jingiby, edited the past days the article of Andrew Rossos, so on the Talk Page of Drama Uprising, the user StoyanStoyanov80, is discrediting this professor work, in order to delete my quotes from Drama Uprising. On that same Talk page Jingiby classified the Macedonian History as pseudo-science (that is insult to all Academics and Professors of my country). When I point this suspicious editing to the Admin that is watching over the article about Drama Uprising, Jingiby immediately deleted the part from the Bitola Inscription-Talk Page and changed the article (something that he was not willing to do past several days) - that puts suspicion that he was trying to hide his disruptive edits done to make him "win" the Talk pages on Bitola Inscription and Drama Uprising, in order to discredit my sources and present the Macedonians as Bulgarians. I hope you'd get my point now. Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Forbidden History, I fail to see how Jingiby is insulting Macedonia, also that you think that tells me you have some very strong opinions about this topic. Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour needs some more work, but it seems neutral enough; the communist era in the East was a dark time and many terrible things happened, and thankfully that era is over. Your insinuation that Jingiby created it to try to win a dispute on another page is silly, and I'm not sure how that would even be possible. To use diffs, please read the link I gave you that specifically explains how. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, thanks for the reply, I apologize that I did the things without paying proper attention. My aim initially was to get Admins opinion about the problem. I put this as Admin Help on my talk page, but no one replied, therefore I copied and paste the text here. I don't see in which way Jingiby helped me, when he created and edit an articles in order to win a better position at other articles in which he discredits my sources, insults an independent country historiography. I provided my links above about the problem. Please read my problem and let me know if that is Disruptive editing and is it allowed to create new articles or edit existing ones in order to back himself up (stands and views) on Talk pages on some other articles? Is that normal thing and allowed? I'm new at wikipedia and I'm not sure how to provide DIFFS (I provided links to the article pages and to the talk pages, where this problems occured. Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Advice re: would we need a new admin?
I'm trying to stay uninvolved at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, which is fully protected with a lead that has disputed content. Discussion is stalling out over making any changes whatsoever. I am thinking it might help break the logjam if the lead is stripped of all disputed content, then consensus formed to add stuff back in per ONUS. If I suggest this and delete from the lead everything at least X# editors object to, have I made myself involved? I'm the only admin working there, so unless someone else is willing to come in as an admin, I don't want to become involved. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, That is an unusual approach, and its a pretty short lead anyway, I think if you removed the controversial content you'd have no lead. Your course of action could work, but you would need to get consensus to do so, otherwise that's clearly making you involved. I've put the article on my watchlist, and take a look to see what can be done. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, hi there - sorry, I started trying to moderate that talk page, then work got too full on. Thanks for picking up the baton. I think that Ed Johnston has some familiarity with the dispute. FWIW, I agree that a stripped back, basic, uncontroversial lead might be a good starting point. GirthSummit (blether) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bollocks - misfired my ping to EdJohnston, sorry. GirthSummit (blether) 19:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Gaming of article titles
I saw this draft while doing AfC review, but I saw that it the artist's article was called "Apex and Bionic (AB)". I saw that there was no article called simply "Apex and Bionic", but I realized that that title was salted. Can you either unprotect the title so I can move it there, or delete this page and salt it? JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dropped to ECP. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Unhelpful Article Vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not an issue for this noticeboard. Referred elsewhereMaxim.il89
- Maxim.il89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Evening all, can I get some assistance in talking down from a ledge. There has been a string of issues dating back over 12 months with the editors method of contributing at various articles. You can see his talk page is filled with regular intervals of warnings for edit warring and other issues, and more recently received a series of blocks. He has a particular issue with myself. He doesn't understand sourcing to reliable sources, performs a lot of OR and SYNTH, and any discussions generally break down to a point blank refusal to acknowledge other peoples points. I have tried to avoid being the one raising cases / complaints and have tried to involve other editors that have previously spoken to him, but as you can see he just blows past them and continues. Max is clearly passionate, but in 12 months has failed to understand the basics of wikipedia and his editing is both unintentionally disruptive, intentionally disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Koncorde: it might be helpful to show admins diffs of like the worst three examples since the last block in October. Levivich harass/hound 00:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was trying to avoid him getting into another ban territory. He needs someone to talk to him, if his passion could be turned to being constructive it's clear he is motivated. Everything in the last week on Sunderland AFC Supporters? Edits started under a series of IP addresses (Max) then he logged in after I called him on it. Has then repeatedly inserted same unreliable sources to make claims not supported by source in any case, when challenged adds more unreliable sources and ignores reliable sources because he disagrees with them.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
- Discussions boil down to him making unfounded assertions usually because he can't read sources properly even when he finds a reliable one. For example this edit here states
"Sunderland's alternative name of the Black Cats is one which is known up and down the country, but it has only been the club's official nickname since 1997." - [28]
which, to any reader, should be read as "the name Black Cats is known up and down the country" (article written in 2020, 20 years after nickname was adopted). Max infers the sentence to mean that the nickname was known for the prior century. To quote him"LITERALLY states how the name was known since before it was made official."
which is not in the source (and is contradicted by other sources, including those he often provides otherwise). - Another editor [already fed back their own findings] which he, as he often does, just ghosted right past. Koncorde (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- The full quote from that source is: "Sunderland's alternative name of the Black Cats is one which is known up and down the country, but it has only been the club's official nickname since 1997. Before then, they were known as the Rokerites, after their famous old Roker Park ground, but a move to the Stadium of Light meant a change was on the cards. But links between the city of Sunderland, the football club and black cats were nothing new - in fact they go back to the earliest days of the club's history." That clearly says it was Rokerites before 1997, Black Cats after 1997, though the connection to black cats (not the nickname "Black Cats") goes back to the earliest days of the club's history. I agree, Maxim.il89 arguing the source supports the opposite (and edit warring over it) is disruptive. Levivich harass/hound 01:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a bit sick of User:Koncorde stalking me on my edits, I've complained about this before.
- He quoted a text from the guardian that mistakenly stated that Sunderland picked a new nickname... it had never had an official nickname before that point, and the "new" nickname was, in fact, an old one. That has been proven with numerous links.
- However, Koncorde seems to be edit warring for... I don't know, his ego? I've already complained about it before.
- This is not a new nickname. Simple as that. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)