Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive329

Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Emily Murphy and other things

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

---

• Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Emily Murphy and other things

I request an administrator to review this section, and the editor who has written an extensive rant against a person related to the article. They are currently the subject of discretionary sanctions in the topic area. I don't wish for this to become a discussion about the editor but if this is in the wrong place, please let me know. I haven't notified the editor for that reason as well, but if it is still necessary then I will do so. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip, you still have to notify them. I took a look, but as I was involved at Emily Murphy, I can't act as an admin there, but I commented. —valereee (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That person was Donald.Trump. The article was about he and his subordinates trying to steal an American President election. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79 has doubled down at that talk, now calling Emily Murphy an actual criminal and accusing me of having a COI because I'm telling them they shouldn't libel her. Special:Diff/998247947 —valereee (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 has marched into this particular section of Wikipedia apparently with the agenda of vilifying President Trump even above and beyond the scope of the currently relatively NPOV article. I realize that Onetwothreeip wants to avoid making this AN an editor referendum, but I believe that Arglebargle79's conduct does need to be examined in full, particularly on that talk page. I am concerned that the editor is here to soapbox.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And tripling down: Special:Diff/998293365 —valereee (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for the continuing BLP violations and general failure to Get It, as a normal admin action. Any admin may do adminny things with the block. (This action does not preclude the ban discussion below.) --Izno (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from AP32

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

---

• I'll note that Arglebargle79 is already under a restriction for AP32: indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, and obligation to discuss reverts on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation. When I warned them a few minutes ago about BLP violations at AP32 articles on their talk, this was their response: Special:Permalink/998314071#January 2021. I propose a topic ban from AP32.
• Support as proposer —valereee (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support After I saw the above message I tried to leave some guidance, as an uninvolved editor, on the Talk page [1] suggesting they back off a bit. My hope was that this would arrest the need for a TBAN before it came to that point. They not only seemed to double-down with their next edits but then left a message on my Talk page [2] saying they had obtained information, via Twitter, of a "riot" that was going to happen in the next couple days and they needed to get the word out through Wikipedia [3]. There was also a somewhat confusing and (and I hesitate to use this word lightly) incoherent metaphor in which they compared their comments to Topol's 1971 musical film Fiddler on the Roof. At the very least this seems to indicate they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but are, instead, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The 1RR has only seemed to succeed in pushing the disruption "underground" - from article space to the Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and also support the aforementioned indef block due to WP:IDHT to the extreme.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs) was indeffed by Izno at 02:53, 5 January 2021 for BLP violations. FWIW I support an WP:AP2 topic ban (not AP32?) but perhaps this could just be closed if people don't want to discuss. If the user is unblocked and repeats their attitude, would someone please let me know so I can AP2 topic ban them per the discretionary sanctions, although I think others would beat me to it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Groan, somehow I missed seeing Izno's post above. I'm sure it wasn't there five minutes ago... Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Schodingers post! --Izno (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support in case the indef is ever lifted but maintain indef block because I just read the discussion following their block and wow. This is one of the most blatant cases of WP:NOTHERE (if we're being charitable) and/or WP:COMPETENCE (if we're not) I've seen in a very long time if ever.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support ArgleBargle has been concerning in the AP2 area for some time; if they come back to Wikipedia they should edit in some other topic area for some time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I've seen ArgleBargle saying some pretty questionable things regarding AP32, and Wtmitchell and I have been discussing with them a lot on the Electoral Count Act page and I can totally see the arguments for WP:NOTHERE based on that. I've also looked at their conduct on the talk page and the repeated warnings made to them regarding AP32 and they've heeded absolutely none of the warnings. Sadly, even if they're editing in good faith, their actions seem to have wreaked havoc on Wikipedia and that simply cannot be tolerated. I propose a one year ban at the very least, and an indefinite topic block from AP32. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to add on, ArgleBargle's questionable POV/BLP edits literally drew the attention of the President of the United States. Seeing this just furthers the argument for an indefinite ban, unfortunately. Even if some might argue that the edit in question wasn't in violation of Wikipedia policies (it smacks of an NPOV violation to me but that's just my opinion), it shows the real potential for harm resulting from this editing. Unfortunately, it's clear to me that the indefinite ban is warranted, and shouldn't be lifted for a while. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban on grounds of WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE. In my encounters with this person, Arglebargle79 seems to be either incapable or unwilling to leave his POV behind before making edits, and interjecting personal strong bias without actually reading the sources this editor cites. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. I am the editor who filed the two ANEW reports on Arglebargle that got them indefinitely sanctioned in AP2. That was the result of Arglebargle repeatedly changing Biden's photo in the 2020 Democratic primaries series, which they did because they "loathed" the picture. Complaining about that picture, they wrote some of the most deranged and nonsensical things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. And now I see that they are continuing to complain about it in their recent comments after being blocked. This is over something that happened in June, and they are still refusing to let it go. Arglebargle has repeatedly insisted that they did not, in fact, make disruptive edits that we can plainly see in the edit logs, and has blamed their own behavior on a "coterie" of editors conspiring against them. They are fanatically committed to vilifying Trump and anyone connected to him, and have shown zero willingness to understand or comply with our content policies, including WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. That they were blocked for BLP violations does not surprise me. A topic ban is long overdue. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Great Western Main Line

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

---

I noticed from my watch list that someone has moved article Great Western Main Line and it's talk page from main space to Wikipedia project space. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post to get it resolved. Let me know if I should post elsewhere in future. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. This is something that the new(ish?) method of having a dropdown to set the space parameter causes problems compared to (Back In My Day) having to type in any project prefix: it's easy to accidentally set something and not notice... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

misplaced move and its been cleared up by user:The Bushranger. Nthep (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Cyberbot I and lowercase sigmabot II are edit warring

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

---

• Cyberbot I (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
• Lowercase sigmabot II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

These two bots have decided to edit war over if there should be a sandbox header or not, so I don't know what to do.

Courtesy ping: cyberpower678 and Σ. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone's cocked up lcsii's sandbox code, which is why there's oddities afoot. I'm looking into it. Primefac (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think they're edit warring. lcsii seems to be triggered whenever you add something at the very top of the page, not by whatever Cyberbot's been doing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's {{Sandbox reset}}. I reverted the blanking and upgraded the protection. Sandbox looks good now. — The Earwig ^talk 02:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea how I missed that (looked at a dozen different templates and template redirects). Primefac (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure either, so I consulted the source code. (This was complicated by undetected IP vandalism that had deleted the source code. Sigh.) — The Earwig ^talk 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GAH! I looked through that page a half-dozen times and somehow managed to miss that line... Primefac (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC) of course, the vandalism that removed that part of the page six months ago explains it!

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

J4lambert, repeated unsourced editing & creating double-redirects following block

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

---

J4lambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated unsourced and disruptive editing. Indefinitely banned 4 November 2020 from edits relating to elections in the United States, broadly construed. Blocked 3 December 2020 following first ANI detailing very long-term disruptive editing pattern. Following unblock 10 December 2020, additional unsourced edits:

• Frutiger (typeface)—First edit, adding unsourced content
  • Talk:Frutiger (typeface)—Second edit, asking others to source user's own unsourced edit
  • Frutiger (typeface)—Third edit, making unsourced content a hidden comment
• Addition of unsourced content to Edd Kalehoff

Additional disruptive editing creating of double-redirects:

• Trump twitter ban
• 2021 NHL Lake Tahoe series

And further disruptive editing adding unnecessary/spam redirects:

• 1918 liberty loan parade
• Forza motorsport 8
• B117 pandemic

AldezD (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Those redirects... J4lambert (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was previously barred from editing articles related to the US elections. J4lambert (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @JBW:, an involved admin. AldezD (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am announcing my retirement from Wikipedia effective January 17, 2021, due to issues regarding my edits of articles for the 2020 United States presidential election. J4lambert (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty well the editor's entire editing history since the recent block expired seems to consist of doing the things that led to that block, including blatant violations of their topic ban. I shall reinstate the block, this time indefinitely, which I warned the editor would be likely to happen if the same pattern of editing returned. (I had hoped that the block would prompt the editor to start taking notice of messages and warnings about unacceptable editing, and change their approach, but unfortunately that hasn't happened.) JBW (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You know, it's an account from 2008 and all, but I couldn't help but on seeing J4lambert wondering if they were deliberately trying to "look like" Johnpacklambert... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by Ahrtoodeetoo

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

---

Moved from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

A simple perusal of my contributions shows perfectly well I am here to build an encyclopedia and have made ample productive contributions to the project, both recently and in the past. The blocking admin's explanation underscores the weakness of this block. Their justification is not about WP:HERE, but is about incivility. I think I was quite civil, but even if I wasn't, that's no basis for an insta-indef without a civility warning--DS do not apply here. If their justification was that I've been refusing to let people post non-mandatory comments on my user talk, that's not a blockable offense, that's my right. In fact, the blocking admin's repeated posting on my user talk against my express, acknowledged requests is harassment-- see WP:HUSH. I understand this is a block appeal, but I believe in good faith this admin is harassing me and this should boomerang. Please at least open this up to ANI because I think this is a total misapplication of policy. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context, but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful and inconsistent with the spirit of the project and I won't do that again. I do think the community needs to have further conversation about admins' use of their authority in user talk spaces, but that's a separate issue. I also think the indef block was grossly disproportionate to the offense, especially in context, and a deescalation with a simple warning combined with an invitation to join the Teahouse discussion would have done the trick. But that is not an excuse. I'm also willing to engage in further discussion with the community to understand what my obligations are with respect to my user talk, and to comply with those obligations. R2 (bleep) 23:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is copied from User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo#Unblock request. Note that 331dot modified the block reason after Ahrtoodeetoo's unblock request (first paragraph copied from unblock template). The second paragraph is Ahrtoodeetoo's last post to the thread. Politrukki (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a standard unblock request. And frankly, given the years of chronic incivility, I find the follow up request to be quite insincere considering just minutes before they were blaming everyone else for their actions. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I know this "isn't the place for a standard unblock request", but the circumstances are also unusual because of Ahrtoodeetoo's unusual "banning" of normal discussion on their talk page. I do wonder whether the subject line I picked is misleading because the community should not decide whether Ahrtoodeetoo should be unblocked. This should also not be considered a review of 331dot's acions.

Looks like there were mainly two reasons for the block: a) a note on their talk page: "Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. (see User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo#Important notice - please read before postng from 2019) and b) recent personal attack telling 331dot "GTFO my user talk, pig"[4].

When I saw the personal attack – and before Ahrtoodeetoo was blocked – my initial thought was whether the incident should be taken to ANI and ask whether a (short?) civility block would be necessary and request whether the community should ban the blanket ban Ahrtoodeetoo "imposed". I didn't know that a Teahouse discussion existed.

Disclaimer: I have collaboratively edited with Ahrtoodeetoo, but we may have had minor disagreements, at least indirectly. But both happened ages ago. Politrukki (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As the editor who brought this user to the blocking administrator's attention through a Teahouse thread, I feel obliged to comment. I will not pass comment on the matter of civility, as the requestor's comments speak for themselves. However, under WP:ENGAGE, I struggle to understand why the requestor believes the notice "banning" other editors from posting on their talk page and pinging them is appropriate. Under WP:UOWN (which the editor cites themself), pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user ... other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you. A blanket prohibition on both user talk page messages and pinging means that there is no way to bring a matter to the requestor's attention. That is simply untenable. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context," I think that says it all. No it was not acceptable in context, and until they realise that I don't think an unblock from a civility block is justified. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out on their talk page, this isn't their only foray into the world of attacks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am willing to answer questions if requested, but to avoid further accusations of harassment I won't make any comment here. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: re: "I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context" (emphasis mine). If the editor believes this could be reasonable in any context I think there are problems waiting to happen. re: "but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful", editor seems to think the problem is with others perceptions and not their words, again I think a sign there are problems waiting to happen. Blocks are prevenative.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's always a shame to see an otherwise productive editor indeffed over a lapse in judgment like this, but I'm not going to offer an opinion on the length of the block because a first-time civility block that's also a first-time indef should be, frankly, easy to get lifted with an unblock request. "I understand that my comments were uncivil and unacceptable in a collaborative project. It was a major lapse in judgment and I will do my best not to let it happen again. Sorry to [other editor]." That's all that's really needed (along with sticking to that sentiment). On the other hand, saying you don't think it was uncivil, and that it was in fact "reasonable in context" is not only going to result in a declined unblock, but will make the next unblock request more difficult (which isn't to say it's not still relatively easy to fix this if you want to). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • R2 has drawn my attention to this comment, which hasn't been copied here and is a step closer to the right direction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Rhododendrites, what I'm struggling with a bit at the moment is how 331dot's messages can be construed as being harassment. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Sdrqaz: - I share that concern. SQL^{Query me!} 16:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Sure. It's just a clarification that wasn't posted here which is, if not quite there yet, at least a step closer. The problem with having messages copied to ANI is that what's here is what people will primarily base their opinions on, rather than subsequent clarifications on the user's talk page. So the best thing at this point, R2, may be to take a couple days and start with a fresh request clearly articulating your perspective, keeping in mind that attempts at justification often throw a wrench into such requests when not entirely compelling. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still on the fence about an unblock here, leaning slightly towards an eventual unblock. I was initially ready to unblock with a "Sorry, it was a lapse, won't happen again", and quickly escalated to the point that we had to move discussion off the user's talkpage. I was surprised to see the quick about-face, which is almost there. I'd agree with others above that "reasonable in context" is problematic, which is somewhat addressed here, albeit with a sarcastic "Really?". I do believe R2 is generally civil, and does good content work. They choose to work in a part of the project I stay far the hell away from because of the extreme toxicity and divisiveness (American politics) - and maybe it would be helpful to edit other subjects for a bit - that has to be draining. SQL^{Query me!} 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Ahrtoodeetoo: (Replying to this message) I had indeed not seen this, which does a far better job at addressing the issue here. SQL^{Query me!} 17:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - 'I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context' says it all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I have to ask. While you are considerably more polite in banning people from your talk page you are also quite prolific in doing so. Do you happen to have a total for how many you have banned from your talk page? PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  BMK: Remember there's no need to respond to trolling. They're just trying to get a rise out of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Who is trolling? It was a serious question that goes to some of the issues in this situation. In the future please WP:AGF. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  With respect, it didn't seem relevant to the matter at hand or necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  My thinking was the block in question had a lot to do with banning people from their talk page. I wanted to get a little more insight into what the effects of such broad banning can have on a users ability to communicate on this wonderful website. With that in mind BMK, as far as I know, has the largest list of users forbidden from communicating with them on their talk page. So I was looking forward to better understanding their point of view. Then, out of no where, I get accused of being a troll by some random person for no apparent reason. It is really disappointing. PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's a big difference between telling individual editors not to come back and telling the community "don't talk to me OR ELSE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  I did not notice an OR ELSE. You quote it, do you have a link so I can take a look? Also where would you say that line is? If I had to guess it is probably a few dozen at least that BMK has banned and I am still waiting on their thoughts on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It was very much implied in their blanket prohibition. As SQL has pointed out, BMK is not having an unblock request evaluated. Your dispute with BMK is not relevant to this matter and is best taken elsewhere. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Truly, I have nothing against BMK. There is no dispute with me and him. Nor am I trying to imply they did anything wrong, they did not. Please stay on track here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say to that exhortation. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: We aren't evaluating an unblock request for BMK. SQL^{Query me!} 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  SQL, Correct. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock; Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the user has proven incompatibility with this concept. Special:Diff/999931299 alone is reason enough not to consider any unblock request for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now - while we certanily need good and productive content creators, the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Editors here have to be compatible with collaboration, which the notice which may or may not have kicked off this whole mess is not. We have to be willing to engage with other editors, and pointedly cutting off the most major method of engagement is bad optics at best. Calling another editor a "pig" (in context, being addressed to an admin, is pretty clear in meaning) is wildly uncivil and the 'apology' for it smacks of not being sorry for it but being sorry for being called out for it (and I do think they were reasonable in context, but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful makes the whole thing a non-apology anyway - either they were reasonable or not and they were very not). Finally, regardless of the merits/reasoning of the original block, the user's conduct on their talk page since the block has left me very uncomfortable with the thought of an unblock at this time. If they are to be unblocked at the very least they need to issue an apology without any weasel words and understand and accept that their user talk page is for communication with them by and from the entire project and that while they can tell editors they have issues with not to post there that is for individuals they have issues with, not a pre-emptive total ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock -They've not addressed the reasons for the block and give the appearance of WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. (Don't talk to me?) Indef is not infinite. User can be unblocked whenever they address the reasons for the block and give the appearance of being able to collaborate. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• I was all for supporting this, because I'm all for unblocks, but I can't support right now. Their comments to Bbb last year were awful, no one should call another editor a pig, and even the unblock reason here is unconvincing: " I do think they were reasonable in context, but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful and inconsistent with the spirit of the project and I won't do that again". No, they were not reasonable in context. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I think it's TOOSOON. R2 needs to stew on this for a little bit. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. But let them make a standard unblock request in the future on their user talk page. (No need for another discussion here.) The banning of literally everybody from their talk page doesn't really work for me. The pages are there so people can communicate, and sometimes communication beyond required templates is necessary. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but I miss the spunky little robot from 2 years ago. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Awilley. "Everybody is banned from my talk page" is a degree of petulance that goes above and beyond simple refusal to collaborate.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Regardless of the outcome of this unblock request, it should be made clear to the requestor that per both WP:ENGAGE and WP:UOWN, the blanket prohibition on both user talk page messages and pinging is not allowed. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz I will note that users are free to turn off pings in their preferences so that they never see them and by extension inform others of that. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot, they are free to do so. But the text of the notice was that other editors shouldn't ping them (instead of a simple notification that pings had been turned off) and the requestor coupled that with a prohibition on others editing their talk page. That seems problematic. What if one has an issue with the content of their contributions or their conduct? Editors should not have to go straight to creating ANI threads instead of trying to hash out a dialogue at their talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In response to the request that I withdraw this proposal, I decline to do so. The proposal has its own subheading, which means other editors can respond to it separately if they wish. It is considered good practice (as far as I can tell) to allow other editors to engage with oneself on one's talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur; saying "do not edit my talk page, ever" is behavior not compatible with a collaborative project. Communication is required, and the user talk page is pretty much the linchpin of communication on Wikipedia; furthermore the editor in question's reactions to people who do post there have been, from what I can see, not constructive - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

[1st] unblock request declined

Just noting to participants that I have declined the [1st] unblock request. El_C 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Publish article page Draft:Synergy_Inc.

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

---

Hello,

Thank you for your help in advance.

I'm trying to publish the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Synergy_Inc.

Please could you help me with this?

Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighting100 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lighting100 In the future please use the Help Desk or Teahouse for questions like this. Your draft was unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and has no interest in increasing their exposure. When independent reliable sources choose on their own to give what I assume is your company significant coverage, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, someone will eventually write about it- but it shouldn't be you, and the company will have no control over any article that might be created about it. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your link is broken. The deleted page to which you were trying to refer is Draft:Synergy_Inc.. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Copyright mistake

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

---

I accidently plagiarized a source here, leaving text I copied as an aide-memoire behind by mistake. I think this needs redacting. Thanks! GPinkerton (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, many thanks! GPinkerton (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Probable STOCKs moment

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

---

Hi all, I'm hoping someone can help me out. I went to nominate Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals for CSD deletion on G8, the category has only redirects to the category. I quickly realised that I hadn't nominated, but deleted the page (by CSD). I wasn't so worried until I saw a similar discussion on the topic that was kept so went to revert the action. I thought the page had around 20-30 redirects... It has well over 250. I've reverted the deletion of the main page, but would rather not be sat here for the rest of the year undeleting each individual redirect!

Is there an action (potentially interface admin task) that allows for multiple pages to be undeleted? I can't find such an option in my deletion log or any info on this anywhere. Apologies for any issues concerned. If there isn't a speedy way to do this, I'll do these all manually, but it might take me a little while. Thanks for any help you can be. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This smells of bullcrap (not LV's deletion, but the existence of the cat). If it isn't notable enough for an article, we shouldn't use a self-referential category page to avoid AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I don't disagree that there is a question to be asked, but that location would be at MfD. I'm super worried about the amount of redirects the page had - so sorry! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it's better to have the discussion first and only clean this up if necessary (possibly retargeting links, and possibly via the same bot that created the pages). Unless someone beats me to it, I'll probably nominate the page for MFD, or create an article on the topic and procedurally self-AFD it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Keep in mind that there are more of such categories, listed at the above-linked discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

These redirects should be restored, per CFD consensus. This category is part of a defence system against predatory citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I know it's offtopic to the technical question of how to restore these, but I feel these MUST be re-targeted. I find the current situation akin to Escher's Drawing Hands and completely unacceptable. A category that exists solely to contain redirects to that category, because the topic is non-notable. HUMBUG! If these pages about something non-notable must exist "because they are useful to the project", it should redirect to the Wikipedia namespace. (there's a secondary issue of "how do we know these are predatory if there aren't any reliable sources about the publisher", but I'll save that for another page) power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll also take a moment to point out that [5] and [6] will find a bunch of articles with IDOSI-published citations, which should in all likelihood be removed/purged/replaced with {{cn}} tags. WP:UPSD will also make it easier to find them when editing the articles. The count is going down (about 25 left, down from 150+ a few months back). Any help you can give to get those out of Wikipedia would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to lend out a hand if you have any projects for cleaning up tags like this, but first I'd just want to get these back into place. If there is a technical way of undeleting several pages at a time, let me know, or I'll start doing them all manually later today. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't Twinkle have some sort of mass-delete/undelete tool per this? I don't 100% know how it works, but maybe open up your log at 500, copy and paste all the redirect deletions into a text editor or regex101.com, do a replacement to filter out the rest of the log entry so you're just left with the page names, turn them into wikilinks and paste them into your sandbox. Then run the batch undelete. Probably would take about a minute, if it works like how I think it does. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

- Thank you for this, I could kiss you (of course, I won't... Social distancing). I'll give this a go later. I was trying to do this outside of userspace, which is why I got confused. Thanks! If there is a discussion to be had - I suggest this is done and these categories marked to avoid issues like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the {{Old CfD}} template should have been placed on the talk pages of all the categories, not one or so. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: here: User:ProcrastinatingReader/deletelist :) -- you can maybe run the batch undelete on that page (I don't know what format Twinkle accepts, hopefully that works). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have done this. I do think there needs to be a further discussion on how these should be treated (should these be deleted/hidden/reformatted to be done throigh wikidata etc.) but thanks for getting me out of a hole. Headbomb if I can help with some gnoming tasks to get the {{cn}} tags replaced let me know what I need to do. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Hardcore pornography in PornHub article

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

---

I was looking up information on PornHub to try to understand the timing of the internet pornography phenomenon.

I knew better than to search on Google, so I looked up their Wikipedia article. It turns out that the first image on their article is the front page of their website which is a series of hardcore pornographic images. The images are not blurred either.

Many people may have reasons to look up information on PornHub, parents, people struggling with pornography addiction, and possibly even children for a school project. None of them should be subjected to hardcore pornographic images (especially children) when looking up such images.

Is there a way to get this removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:100:DD60:573:92F9:8D58:3FFC (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is more suited for the article talk page as it doesn't specifically require an administrator. However, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. It is reasonable that an image of the front page of a website would be visible on an article about that website. There are options both here on Wikipedia and on your personal device to suppress the display of images one might find objectionable. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is referring to the screenshot, which does indeed contain some rather small images of porn. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The screenshot image, in the infobox, is hidden by default. To see it, you have to deliberately request "[show]"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not on mobile devices. Minerva doesn’t support collapsing, so it’s expanded by default. You can verify at en.m.Wikipedia.org. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. One wonder if the editor(s) who added the image knew that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's also only a representative sample, because it consists of a selection of thumbnails of videos that change on a regular basis.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Bit of an AfD backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. In particular, whoever closes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli deserves a barnstar - I'd rather not because I have a well-known dislike of all things Trump, but if people insist I really am the one for the job, I will. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Kudos to Ymblanter for closing that AdD about the flamboyant QAnon insurrectionist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For sure. Have some fresh organic food on me, Ymblanter! El_C 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Micah Wright

• Micah Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MicahWright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have an obvious COI editor here, beefing up their own biography and making two ridiculous claims of "right-wing vandalism". I believe the editor should be blocked; they should certainly be blocked from editing that article, possibly also because of their username. And while you're at it, please also look at MW's edits to User talk:Redfraud10202, and to that editor's edits. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend at least a block for the username, with an explanation that, for their own protection, they need to verify their identity with the VRT, and that it can only be done via email. I don't think their edit summaries rise to the level of legal threats, so I wouldn't block for that. I do think they need somebody to explain to them that subjects of articles do not own the articles about them, and they may not control the content. Worst case, a long-term partial block might be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the second editor, their first edit seemed to be good faith, but I have misgivings at least about the original research with the last edit to Micah Wright. That username is mildly concerning as well, but it could be mitigated if the user is a member of a First Peoples community and is acting in good faith to prevent misappropriation or abuse of First Peoples culture. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Orangemike has blocked MicahWright for uw-wellknown (although at least from their edit summaries WP:NLT would also have been a valid reason...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If they address the impersonation issue, then we can look at the WP:NLT. C.Fred thinks they don't quite rise to the level of an NLT violation; what do others think? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have declined the rename request. I believe there are greater issues here than the user name. The user should not be allowed to edit the article, regardless of whether or not there is impersonation or a COI. Their attitude and lack of AGF may make them not compatible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A user is reverting me and says I'm a sockuppet

Can I please have an administrator to solve an issue I have with ShelteredCook? They accused me yesterday of being a sockpuppet of two accounts. I told them that I am not any of those users. I added my edits back to the Asian values page after I told them that I'm not a sockpuppet and they deleted it again without any explanation. I am very upset that I am being labelled a sockpuppet. I am not a vandal like the sockpuppet users. So why do they believe that I am a sockpuppet? My account is new but I have some understanding of Wikipedia because of a school project I did. So I know a few things on this site. They said my sources weren't added correctly and I know that but I copied it from the page. Can you please tell them to stop accusing me of a sockpuppet and to stop deleting my edits? UNFen (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For context, here's the master's sockpuppet investigation and the LTA which explains the behavior behind their edits. You also did not notify me nor tagged me on purpose, despite the large warning sign at the top of the page. Also these claims – "I am not a vandal like the sockpuppet users" Sockpuppets ≠ vandals. Your other accounts weren't blocked for vandalism, but for sockpuppetry. – "My account is new but I have some understanding of Wikipedia because of a school project I did." What exactly is this supposed to mean? Perhaps you felt that you could be more bold and get uninvolved admins into the discussion as a CU check returned as "Possilikely" instead of "Confirmed", but the fact that you immediately defended yourself on the SPI as well as deciding to go on AN instead of waiting for another response on the SPI just shows how badly you want to dissociate yourself formerly as Sapah3 and continue editing as a "new account", despite the fact that there's a huge edit overlap as well as being from the same IP range. ShelteredCook (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My edits are not the same as theirs though. I looked at your links and I can't find Asian values page on their list of pages. I don't even know what an LTA is to begin with. OK I didn't look at all the information before I came here so I didn't know I had to tag you. I don't have other accounts? Omg why are you attacking me like this? My school project was about Wikipedia and what the system is for editors here. I defended myself because I saw your edit summary. That's why I looked at your other edits to find the link and understand what was going on. I know how some things work around here, I'm not ignorant. How am I supposed to know that I'm supposed to wait for another response on the SPI? I've never been involved in such a thing. What's the edit overlap? The other user has not made edits to Asian values page (I looked at the links you gave me and I can't find anything) and what do you mean same IP range? You're just assuming I'm a sockpuppet without actually knowing anything about me. How can you know about my IP address if I have never shown you my IP address? I read your LTA and you're just assuming I'm a sockpuppet because the other user edits Asian pages too. Not everybody who edits Asian pages is a sockpuppet. Stop treating me like this. UNFen (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC) If this is how you treat new editors here then I don't want to be here. I feel so upset right now because you're saying all these things that aren't true and I don't know what else I can say to defend myself because you won't believe me. UNFen (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You were already told on your other account FloralRiver about not having a clean start if there are active bans, blocks, etc but you did not listen at the time. That's why you were blocked (by SilkTork) for sockpuppetry. And to address this statement – and what do you mean same IP range? You're just assuming I'm a sockpuppet without actually knowing anything about me. How can you know about my IP address if I have never shown you my IP address? I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by feigning ignorance once again (didn't you just mention above that you "have some understanding of Wikipedia because of a school project I did")? because a CU check on the SPI literally returned with the same IP range as Sapah3. I don't think it's just a coincidence that despite the range we have 2 different users making similar edits on Asian topics, with considerable prior knowledge of Wikipedia, and within the same time frame. ShelteredCook (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not that sockpuppet you're speaking about. I only made one edit to Wikipedia and that was to the Asian values page. I looked at the edits of the sockpuppet on your LTA page and they didn't make any edits to Asian values. You haven't said anything about this. I want to edit pages on Southeast Asian and Pacific topics, that's why I edited Asian values. They made edits on South Asian and East Asian topics, not Southeast Asia/Pacific. Our interests are completely different. If I was the same person as the sockpuppet user then I would have been blocked but I wasn't. You shouldn't assume everybody here is a sockpuppet and you shouldn't be so hostile. I said I did a project on Wikipedia for school, I know how things work here I'm not dumb. What time frame? I mostly edit Wikipedia at night time, yesterday was different because it's the weekend so I edited during the afternoon. I looked at your LTA and that sockpuppet's time frame is all over the place. Are you going to judge every new account that makes edits to Asian pages? It looks like you are looking at all of the Asian pages to find that sockpuppet user, well I'm not them. So you should leave me alone. You wouldn't have looked at me if I made my first edit to the Chamorro people page. I know you wouldn't have but you looked at me because I'm new and I made an edit to an Asian page. Typing this all out just made me realise how unwelcoming this place is. UNFen (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dozens of new accounts copyediting the same pages

Over the last week or so, there has been a lot of new accounts making copyedits to the same articles: Cham–Vietnamese War (982), Ibrahim Khaleel Inuwa, Qaransoor Party, Carmel Convent School, Pair Go, Majlis Amanah Rakyat, and several more. I had listed some at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NhatMinh1701#More sockpuppets, but it quickly became evident that these are likely unrelated to that SPI.

Any idea what's going on? Does this fit in with a known LTA case or something else? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

All of the listed articles are, or were, tagged for copy-editing. Articles with that maintenance tag show up at the Wikipedia:Community portal, which is shown to new users after they sign up (at least, I faintly recall that being the case when I was new). As a result these articles tend to attract a large volume of newbie edits, some of which are good, some of which are misguided, and some of which are blatant vandalism or spam. For example, you can see all the edits pouring in after someone put a copyedit tag on this article. I generally avoid using that tag unless an article is nearly unreadable because it often results in nearly as many bad edits as good ones. I don't know anything about that SPI case, but I would bet that most of these accounts are unrelated newbies. Spicy (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation! I didn't realize that the copyedit tag pools new editors together so quickly like that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusation of trolling

In 'Talk' about article "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (here) I wrote a new section (with comment "Not all available evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin") called == The origin of the coronovirus ==. In this text I wrote:

"The sentence: <<All available evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural animal origin and is not genetically engineered" is false and please delete it. Here are examples of articles questioning the natural origin of the virus:>>

1) K. Sirotkin, D. Sirotkin "Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture? A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus’ distinctive genome" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/);

2) 2) Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD), Shu Kang (PhD), Jie Guan (PhD), Shanchang Hu (PhD), "Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route";

3) 3) Rossana Segreto, Yuri Deigin, "The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. SARS‐COV‐2 chimeric structure and furin cleavage site might be the result of genetic manipulation" (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240).

Moreover, the mere fact that there is a worst-case virus research laboratory in Wuhan requires logical skepticism to claim that the virus is natural. The quoted sentence is either propaganda or extremely careless."

The section was deleted and commented as follows: "Reverted to revision 1000320629 by Forich (talk): Rm ludicrous trolling of a discredited conspiracy theory". What is this treatment of users? After all, this is rudeness. At least the first paper should be taken seriously, not considered as conspiracy theory or trolling. What's more reprehensible, it happened in the discussion section, not the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.183.138.99 (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is a conspiracy theory to claim that COVID-19 has a non-natural origin. We don't entertain extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 19:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• More admin eyes at Wuhan Institute of Virology and associated talk page appreciated. Falls under the COVID GS. Edit warring, lengthy repetitive fringe POV pushing on talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

There's a backlog of nearly 40 on the page. Letting y'all know. Thank you ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog

There is a huge backlog of 40+ requests. Help requested. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 18:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We are fine there for the time being, thanks everyone who helped clearing the backlog.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Username policy question

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

---

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

---

What's the current consensus about people using character names for their username? For instance, User:Lieutenant commander Spock? As far as I know, only a very limited number of people have played this character, would this then violate the proscription against usernames which impersonate other people? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How is this different from SarekOfVulcan (ha!) or Beeblebrox? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Very good question (although I wasn't aware that "Beeblebrox" was a character name). I assume, then, considering the very long tenure of these editors, that character names are OK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if there were WP:IMPERSONATE concerns, Beeblebrox is no longer President of the Galaxy, and even if he were, the President of the Galaxy holds no real power. So I think we're in the clear. --WaltCip-(talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"not to hold power but to distract attention away from it!" GPinkerton (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Haha! (@WaltCip and GPinkerton:) El_C 19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, geez, of course! It's been so long since I've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I completely forgot! What a doofus am I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell there's no pushback against using character names. I wouldn't bat an eye towards a user that identifies themselves as AnakinSkywalker (heck, I came across a user who used a derivative of a character from an anime series). The most compelling argument I can think of is that they're impersonating the character, which isn't much in itself, as what harm's being done if people mistakenly assume the actual Darth Vader is editing the article about petunias? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If they implied they were the actor of the character, then I'd raise an eyebrow in the direction of WP:U (and WP:BLP), but as claiming you're a fictional character can only be a fiction any sanctions would, themselves, be works of fiction. translation for those less in need of a burger right now: it's fine - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What Beyond My Ken. You didn't know that we had an editor with two heads and three arms :-) I'm thinking of having a pan galactic gargle blaster to celebrate today's events later tonight. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoist one for me too, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, not again... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington of Harry Potter fame. Here's a fun game - how many admins' usernames can you put into square brackets and get a hit? Gadfium takes me to Feersum Endjinn, and I'm pretty confident that Gamaliel is not the real Gamaliel. I think the policy is there to prevent people impersonating folk that they could plausibly be - I don't see any reason to think it would apply to fictional or historical characters. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

... and admins Lady of Shalott and Carcharoth. There are certainly examples for both categories which aren't appropriate, but then they will be violating username policy for other reasons. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Do DABs count? If so, even The Bushranger is one. Pahunkat (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am Sheriff Woody but don't tell Buzz... Woody (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not Woody Woodpecker? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

I just want to add that I'm sorry I missed this amusing discussion. Excellent close though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Late to the party, too. I, too, would be disappointed if I had to change my name after 14 years. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ditto, but mine isn't as obvious as it's a (fairly simple) anagram of the name. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Hardcore pornography in PornHub article

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

---

I was looking up information on PornHub to try to understand the timing of the internet pornography phenomenon.

I knew better than to search on Google, so I looked up their Wikipedia article. It turns out that the first image on their article is the front page of their website which is a series of hardcore pornographic images. The images are not blurred either.

Many people may have reasons to look up information on PornHub, parents, people struggling with pornography addiction, and possibly even children for a school project. None of them should be subjected to hardcore pornographic images (especially children) when looking up such images.

Is there a way to get this removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:100:DD60:573:92F9:8D58:3FFC (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is more suited for the article talk page as it doesn't specifically require an administrator. However, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. It is reasonable that an image of the front page of a website would be visible on an article about that website. There are options both here on Wikipedia and on your personal device to suppress the display of images one might find objectionable. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is referring to the screenshot, which does indeed contain some rather small images of porn. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The screenshot image, in the infobox, is hidden by default. To see it, you have to deliberately request "[show]"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not on mobile devices. Minerva doesn’t support collapsing, so it’s expanded by default. You can verify at en.m.Wikipedia.org. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. One wonder if the editor(s) who added the image knew that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's also only a representative sample, because it consists of a selection of thumbnails of videos that change on a regular basis.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:BackEing webhost-ing

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

I wasn't sure where to bring this up, but besides the test edits to articles like iOS 14, this user has about 50 pages dedicated as an apparent webhost. Would the pages be evaluated one at a time or in bulk? Cards84664 03:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Red box on top would be good starting point. Their talk page would have been even better starting point given they are a new editor and may be unaware of WP:Webhost(edit-really, not a shortcut?). Not to say it's not a problem but processes need to be followed. Slywriter (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter:, I think you wanted WP:NOTWEBHOST. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned up most of the pages, though I left a few that could possibly be encyclopedic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Cards84664 16:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Find/replace of names across various non-live pages

Just wanted a second adminly opinion about this IP range, which appears to be doing a find/replace on various names. While it appears like it's motivated by good intentions, so that links point to the correct target article rather than redirects, the changes are being made in odd places, like sandboxes, user warnings, discussion archives. And, talk page comments are being refactored, in some cases, without there being any benefit to linking.

What's the wise approach here? Leave it alone? Block the range? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Warn the user about WP:NOTBROKEN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.240.72 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the chip-in, however this is an IP-hopper, which makes warnings a bit difficult, as we would have to first find their next batch of edits, do so at the very same time they're making the changes, and then hope they don't hop to a different IP after the warning is left. A block, at least, would get their attention. Also, per that guideline, "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected" and that's presumably what they're trying to fix. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Canyon dhb Soreen Page Name Change

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

---

Hello,

Please can someone update the following page name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_DHB_p/b_Soreen

The new page name needs to read: 'Canyon dhb SunGod'.

I am not an admin of this page and therefore cannot update this.

Please can this be done asap, the name of the team changed as of 1st Jan 2021.

Thanks, Chloe — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNGallagher (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

A motion regarding the American politics 2 case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Request for Amendment. The motion is as follows:

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

Promotional account

Wackyweasle (talk · contribs) is, by their own admission, a promotional account. They've set up Memorial bracelet to promote their products, and are now trying to get Draft:Post-Combat Related Incident accepted. --Un assiolo (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. The promotional stuff has been deleted and they've been given a 4im-spam and a COI notice by Deepfriedokra. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:Username policy and QAnon

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

---

• WP:Username policy

Would you consider a QAnon-based username to be a violation of username policy? It could be considered "disruptive or offensive". Specifically thinking about one I just saw based on the "WWG1WGA" hashtag. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it disruptive or offensive, nor any other violation, unless the username also contained some of the more offensive parts of the conspiracy theory. That isn't to say I'd rate their long term prospects very highly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would regard it as a violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a violation, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Not sure which got posted first, but I blocked WWG1WWA2021 based on the username and raised the issue of the block over at WP:ANI, specifically Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_qanon_username. Sorry, the discussion is in two places. I have no problem if someone wishes to close the WP:ANI discussion in favour of this one. --Yamla (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yamla, ha no worries! I posted my question after their first two edits (which seemed to indicate NOTHERE, but I was giving some benefit of the doubt). The contributions following, which I only just now saw, are clear NOTHERE. The AN/I thread you posted is a good way to look at this one singular case, while this thread is about any and all QAnon accounts. I see that there is some support for autoblocking any WWG1WGA-named accounts among these few to chime in, so far. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly a good block per "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g. by containing profanities or referencing controversies.". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree, and that's the reason. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree, this seems to me to satisfy the or referencing controversies part Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• A QAnon-related username would be provocative and I agree with Beyond My Ken here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Political based usernames are inherently disruptive. Conspiracy-based ones, like lunchtime, doubly so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Exhibit B: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#AnonQuixote GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• I dunno, I think that the name is a little too far from "QAnon" - when I saw it at AE, no connection even occured to me. However, if their edits are QAnon-oriented (I haven't looked), then the combination of disruptive edits and the name would be enough to be blocked, I would think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I regard it as a violation, which why I completely purged Special:Contributions/WWG1WWA2021. But, no, I don't regard the AnonQuixote username to be a violation, even if that username does push that particular envelop. Note that they are inches from being topic banned from the 2021 Insurrection and 2nd Impeachment topic areas, so one may draw their own conclusions... El_C 07:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, as I said above this seems to clearly satisfy Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g. by containing profanities or referencing controversies. (bolding mine) and therefore a violation of the username policy Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, as others have said, it falls into the "referencing controversies" criterion. But a note of caution - personally, although I'm vaguely aware of QAnon, it's something I've tried to steer clear of so I wouldn't have realised that "WWG1WGA" was a QAnon reference - on the face of it it's a random string of initials and numbers. So we need to be careful that we don't bite admins who decline such a block - and of course, the more eyes on WP:UAA the better as it's often backlogged anyway. WaggersTALK 10:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  That said, a quick internet search of any reported username should tell us what we need to know! WaggersTALK 10:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't use this username on any other site. AnonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Statement My intent with this username was a play on words on Don Quixote, due to my propensity for "tilting at windmills" on issues I feel are important, even if it means getting beat up by the local rustics sometimes, combined with the fact that I'm an anonymous (well, psuedonymous) user. The similarity to QAnon didn't even occur to me.

However, now that it's been brought up, I'm a little concerned that it could be interpreted in that way, leading to unfair bias against me. Is there a way to request it be changed without losing my contribution history, settings, etc.? If so, I request it be changed to the more whimsical User:NachoPanza, to reflect my status as humble helper who loves snacks. AnonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username for information on how to request a user name change. It is unfortunate that innocently chosen names can run into problems such as yours. - Donald Albury 00:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote, I think your name is different enough that you don't have to change it if you don't want to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Preparing for the U.S. inauguration

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

---

Just a note to say, I hope some admin or admins (not me) are preparing to handle the articles Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on Inauguration Day, January 20. What always happens that day is that people start changing the articles from present tense to past, and from current title to new title, hours before the transition actually happens at noon eastern time. And then there is edit warring, reverting the changes, doing them again, all in good faith. So it has usually been necessary to 1) full-protect the article that day and 2) have some admin ready to slap in a pre-prepared updated version the moment the new president says "so help me God". I know this may seem trivial, but changing the article at the right moment and not before seems to be a huge deal here. Has there been discussion about this? Have the roles (4 of them) been volunteered for/assigned? We should coordinate beforehand, so that one and only one person at each article does the change. There's probably a better place than this board to work it out. I'm not asking to know the details. I just wanted to make sure someone is on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, MelanieN... I'm a bit wary of preemptive full protection. While I get the imperative behind being pragmatic about it, still, except for Melania's (and, as of now, also Jill Biden's) semi, all the other ones are already WP:ECP'd. Would that not be enough do you think to temper matters? Quick addendum: ah, I see that Mike Pence is semi'd, as well. El_C 01:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course you are right about pre-emptive protection. But it may turn out to be needed, not pre-emptively but because of chaos at the article. I'm just recalling the presidential pages four years ago, which were a madhouse. People changing, people reverting, edit conflicting - and then when the moment arrived someone (I don't know who) was ready on the instant to slap in a completely revised article. I thought that must be the system, that somebody was ready - because it would take many minutes to make all the changes after the moment arrives. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem locking down articles as tight as the checkpoints in Washington DC, if necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would advise against drawing parallels with rhetoric of that nature. No one will get killed or injured here on Wikipedia, regardless of anything. My point is that tons of editors will be watching those pages and ECP is a fairly stable proposition. Taking action, in part, as a sort of political statement is ill-advised, I challenge. Perhaps there will be some instability, but that should be weighed against keeping those pages open to established (EC) editors, even and perhaps especially during critical times... El_C 02:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:President_of_the_United_States#Adding_time_expression_to_page This talk page discussion and the code suggested could be useful. Slywriter (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting idea. As I understand it, that was intended to change the names on the "president of the United States" page. The cases I am talking about are where well meaning, Extended Confirmed editors start changing "president elect" to "president", and "president" to "former president", before the magic moment when the transition occurs - and other well meaning EC editors revert them. We can wait and see what happens, but we may find full protection to become necessary. I'm just saying we should be ready for the possibility. And that, whether or not it gets full protected, somebody should be ready with a fully-updated version of the article to paste in at the proper moment. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. For that purpose, I am tempted to go to the talk page of each of the four relevant articles and ask for a volunteer to prepare a page that has all the relevant updates made, and to paste it in at exactly 12 noon eastern time. Anyone here have a problem with that, or think I shouldn't do it? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. Because the articles still keep getting modified, before and after 12 noon ECT, the two copies need to be synchronized in real time, and I do not think this is realistically possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Then how do you deal with the need to make at least several minutes worth of important changes to the article at a given moment in time? Let a hundred people all try to do it at once and get in each other's way so that nothing happens? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This happens every time we have some important changes in real life. I agree that if incorrect edits start at midnight, we will have to full-protect the articles. Then we do not need to have any other version, just make a replacement at noon. If there is no need to protect, well, there will be chaos for five minutes, no problem. Look at any article on say Nobel Prize winner in literature to see how this chaos gets resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's ok if the articles are changed earlier or later than the actual inauguration. Wikipedia doesn't need to be up-to-the-second accurate. It's also ok if these articles are unstable for a day due to the inauguration. They're pretty unstable every day, anyway. Please don't preemptively full protect, and please nobody full protect at the first sign of trouble or be quick on the trigger. Full protection is a last resort. Editing, and editing disagreements, are a normal part of the process. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would rather they be edited later than the inauguration instead of pre-emptively, because then we risk people creating a precedent of pre-emptive editing project wide. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

True: "later" would be policy-compliant, "earlier" would actually violate WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We can at least try to maintain a semblance of being an encyclopaedia "that anyone [with ECP] can edit". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, many IPs or drive-by editors will be changing the article at the stroke of mid-night Jan 20, instead of waiting another 12 hours. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No they won't. The articles are all EC protected. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I presume they were being sarcastic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies to the contrary views above, but I would strongly support moving quickly to fully protect these articles through the inauguration at the first sign of trouble. Aside from the actual transition of power, we are not expecting any substantial biographical changes to these article subjects, and there is no doubt that numerous admins will be watching them and able to field requested edits on the talk pages. Left unprotected, the potential for mischief is high. BD2412 T 17:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with fully protecting them at the first sign of trouble; I just disagree with preemptive full protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  What about poor Mike Pence? What is he, chopped liver? On a more serious note, I oppose pre-emptive protection but support prompt full protection if disruption occurs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Surely he'll be ex-chopped liver on Wednesday. But yes, I agree. Leave the articles as they are, and then protect only if there's disruption. Then unprotect when the inaugurating is done and leave people to update them. There's no need to have a prepared version ready for the crack of noon - if anyone gets frustrated by edit conflicts, it's their own fault for trying to be a news reporter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Surely, considering recent events, using butchered meat metaphors to describe Pence isn't wise. 174.254.192.246 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

    IP editor, please see Chopped liver as an expression. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I take it, the expected contretemps is that at 0:00 UTC in the Pacific Ocean someone will go into tense changing and then there will be reversion, and so-on. Seems likely, but other than locking the articles as around 23:59.59, is there anything else proposed? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• I applaud MelanieN's attempt to organize this to avoid chaos. I understand the desire for preemptive full protection but, given existing protection levels, I'd be more in favor of simply providing a heads up that full protection will be enacted as soon as it is needed. I agree with Ymblanter's observation that having a new version of a page ready to go as logistical problems as they may have been legitimate edits within the last few seconds before the changeover. I hope someone will volunteer to help and to have the necessary edits available at the time they become appropriate, however I'm so disgusted with politics recently I'm not stepping up to volunteer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Locke'm down until Noon EST, 20 January 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You're assuming that the swearing-in will go as planned. I dearly hope that is the case, but in light of recent events -- and not so recent trends throughout the United States -- I won't be placing any bets on it. There are dark forces at work which very, very strongly do not want it to happen. I'm reminded of the line from The Godfather Part II "If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone." I don't think that is going to happen, but there are many, many things that could. It's why I won't rest easy until Biden and Harris are sworn in, and even then... Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Look folks, I hate to be that person (wait, do I?), but just because Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and most of its contributors are American, does not mean we ought to stray from policy here. WP:EMERGENCY is for emergency and that's it. Wikipedia is meant to be a scholarly pursuit. Yes, obeying US law is a given on the project (including WP:BLP), but we are not obliged (as a service to the US State or to Americans or even to our overall global readership) to be perfectly in-the-present in so far as junctures (including and perhaps especially pivotal ones) in American politics are concerned.

Our mission is WP:ENC and it is WP:ANYONE, even if we stretch the latter's definition by limiting it to the highest meaningful set of WP:XC. Whatever delays or even instability, we're probably talking about a minute or two, at most. We can absorb something whacky happening for that duration. If there is an embarrassment of some sort, sure, that would be unfortunate, but it would also go on to highlight the open nature of the project, which is something to be proud, but also vigilant, of.

So, in so far as the encyclopedia is concerned, whatever will be, will be. We will deal with it in due course. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Not really much else to do, or say. And to that: I'm sorry to say (truly), because I know it isn't intentional, but seeking anything beyond that, does come across as a bit of posturing (again, yes, I realize unwittingly so).</soap> El_C 16:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this posture (or posturing). Slap a scary "ongoing event, article unstable" atop the relevant articles if you want, and the editorial process will (or must) do the rest. Sandstein 18:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Haha! Burn! El_C 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a good idea in any case, I added {{ongoing event}} to the articles on Trum, Pence, Biden, and Harris. I hope this is not going to generate an edit-warring so that the articles will have to be full-protected now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

...And they have all been removed by Jack Upland--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Ymblanter, Jack Upland has a valid point. What are we telling our readership when we say initial news reports may be unreliable? This is not some town in, say, Syria. This is the US Capitol, with mighty military security and ample press corps members on-site. We have no reason to infer some sort of impending of instability that would affect those BLPs. All signs are, in fact, to the contrary — yes, even though there are some known-unknowns and maybe even unknown-unknowns. My assessment is that, at present, major instability appears unlikely. So, for us to preempt by declaring it to be otherwise so, that's a mistake, I think. El_C 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Gah, I guess it's moot now, seeing as it just happened minutes ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/politics/biden-president.html El_C 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the instability of an article. For example, today someone added information that Pence is not a vice president anymore, and the article had this false information for two hours. Anyway, now it is indeed moot.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, right, as I note above, it is indeed moot now, so I don't want to belabour the point, but my point was about what we are telling the reader when they face a tag which, again, declares that initial news reports may be unreliable, when there was a faint chance of that. Anyway, glad we got over this hurdle without major problems. El_C 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User: Naiman2020

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

---

Naiman2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is continually berating me and making harmful accusations about me as well as attacking my assumed religion through anti-semitism on the One Night In Miami page. I believe this editor is also editing anonymously pretending to be two seperate editors. (Samurai Kung fu Cowboy) (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yea as was previously discussed on the talk page for One Night in Miami I am not user Naiman 2020. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Reviewing my topic ban

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it. But over a year ago I was put on community restriction and was topic banned from adding my own photographs to any article which already contains an image. The only way I could was to propose it on the respective talk page and get consensus from it. I been doing that since then. I'm going to be honest at some point I might of violated my sanction at some point. A few weeks ago I did revert one edit by a IP user which replaced a photo already used on the article as the infobox.

Personally I'm getting worn out from having to gather everyone on the talk page every time I want to add a image taken by me, the reason they did the sanction in the first place because I did used to self-insert my photos in articles and often wasn't a improvement in the first place but I think I grown from that and noticed my flaws with some of my own photos and understand why editors might've been unhappy with my edits. I did try and ask for my sanction to be lifted however the admin who done it; GoldenRing has been inactive for over a year now. --Vauxford (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Link to ban discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. I am the administrator who wrote the topic ban, which easily gained consensus. Vauxford, you state "Personally I'm getting worn out" with having to comply with the restriction, but I notice that you are not using the edit request process. That may help speed things up. The disruption you created was major, and I am not convinced that problems wouldn't quickly return if the editing restriction was lifted. Also, you used some highly inappropriate language in the discussion that led to the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Please think again. The topic ban prevents the typical usage of edit request template. Typically an edit request template should only be used when a) consensus has already been established or b) the proposed change is so uncontroversial that further discussion is not required (fixing typos and such). Currently Vauxford may start a discussion for proposing changes, but even if consensus emerges and nobody implements the proposal, Vauxford may not make an additional (edit) request to implement the consensus. Politrukki (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support lifting TBAN I don't see any recent disruption. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, isn't violating their topic ban less than three weeks ago, as admitted above, a form of disruption? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Difficult to evaluate this request without knowing Vauxford's track record for image proposals on talk pages. If all the image proposals gained consensus without disruption, then it might be time to lift the restriction. If none of the image proposals gained consensus, then it might not be time to lift the restriction yet. If it's in between, then that would require some thought. But right now there is no data in this appeal from which to base a conclusion. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Support lifting TBAN — after reviewing the IP revert link above, the image proposal links below, and Vauxford's last 50 talkspace contribs (which go back to March 2020). It seems almost all of these image proposals gained consensus and discussion was brief and collegial. Seems to me that Vauxford knows what they're doing and is able to navigate articles without disruption. I don't think this TBAN is necessary to prevent disruption any longer. In fact, I think it's needlessly wasting the time of other editors. I don't want to call any editors out by name, but in reviewing some of these discussions, I saw multiple other editors over the past year express frustration with the fact that Vauxford has to post on a talk page to make uncontroversial improvements to an article. So I think lifting the TBAN would benefit other editors in this topic area. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that their talk page contributions have been collegial, and the communication has significantly improved. Unfortunately, a careful reading of your link shows that Vauxford has violated the topic ban several times:

  1. Talk:Škoda Octavia#Infobox
  2. Talk:Škoda Rapid (2012)#Infobox
  3. Talk:Mercedes-Benz GLB-Class#Article/image proposal
  4. Talk:Leamington Spa#Infobox photo
  5. Talk:BMW 5 Series (G30)#Infobox image
  6. Talk:Audi e-tron (2018)#Images proposal

  Making an opening statements is fine, but the topic ban does not allow making supplementary article talk page comments, unless answering to direct questions. Moreover, topic ban text says, "another editor can add that image to the article". Hence this main space edit would be a violation.

  I'm willing to believe Vauxford has not fully understood the extent of their topic ban and these violations may have been inadvertent. To my knowledge, nobody did bring possible topic ban violations to Vauxford's attention. Politrukki (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's true, I hadn't even picked up on that. To me that says more about why those specific restrictions in the topic ban (and similar "bespoke sanctions") were a bad idea. I think Vauxford's comments, on the whole, were productive and helped move those discussions towards consensus, even if they were violations of the TBAN restrictions. I was looking for incivility, edit warring, people complaining... but saw none of that; instead, I saw mostly people agreeing, and even where there was disagreement, the disagreement was stated but didn't turn into bludgeoning or edit warring. That nobody apparently complained about the TBAN violations, as you point out, suggests to me that there wasn't any disruption or real problem, and I would therefore characterize the TBAN violations as "technical violations". I take a big-picture view: Vauxford has been able to productively contribute in this area for a year and a half without causing trouble, and that's all I can ask of anyone, so I still support lifting the ban, even though you're right about there having been technical (in my view) TBAN violations. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think it would be an absolute travesty if participants here ignored the fact that the disruption these sanctions were claimed necessary to prevent—otherwise they would be punitive—did not occur. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Diffs of the image proposals I made. Jaguar R1, Audi e-tron, Audi A3, Mercedes-Benz GLB-Class, Porsche 911, Porsche 992 Hyundai i10, Skoda Rapid (2012), Skoda Octvia and BMW 5 Series (G30) --Vauxford (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support lifting TBAN - Vauxford has since stopped self-inserting his images and has also stopped reverting those who replace his images - Only a few IPs have reverted him all for unknown/pointless reasons, Whilst there are some concerns with the rationale (as pointed out by Cullen) IMHO they're not enough to warrant an indef topic ban, Going forward I'm sure Vauxford will be more cautious with inserting his images in future. Thanks, 86.169.55.232 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure how keen I am to become involved with this, but two things do stand out about the discussion which I cannot resist mentioning:

* The opinions provided seem to come from people with little or no experience of Vauxford's wiki-constributions when he doesn't have a TBAN in place. If you don't contribute to entries on cars you don't come across Vauxford. So I took the liberty of alerting people to this discussion on the "Automobiles" project talk page.

* Although User:~Swarm~ has provided a link to earlier discussion on this stuff, it's not clear that any of those commenting have taken time to check it out. (Or any of Vauxford's other lengthy exchanges on admin noticeboards and elsewhere.) Might be worthwhile. Though it is - at least by most folks's standards - very long and in places rather angry

Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I checked it out. The close said "A significant minority of editors also feel that Charles01 has been behaving badly and might possibly warrant some sort of sanction. I don't see a consensus for anything at this moment, but would advise Charles01 to take note of the depth of feeling among some editors here and avoid future conflict." Good advice, to which I would add: don't insult your colleagues by suggesting they !voted without having done the reading. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support lifting the tban. I believe that Vauxford has had some time to figure why his behaviour was considered disruptive; in case he did not figure this, the tban can be reimposed. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support lifting TBAN I was involved in the original TBAN discussion along with observing and participating in some of Vauxford's photo discussions before and after the TBAN. I think his behaviour over the duration of the TBAN has been productive and has not fallen into the same problems that lead to the TBAN. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Vauxford: if the ban is lifted, what would you do in case your addition is challenged (addition is reverted or photo is replaced) by anyone, including IP editors? Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Politrukki Depends, the safe bet I think is take it to the talk page discussing the editor's reason why they replaced the photo. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response. That's kinda vague, as you admit below, but nice to know. Politrukki (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting ban - "Getting worn out" from being required to get consensus is not a valid reason for having a topic ban lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's not the only given reason. Another one is "I think I grown from that and noticed my flaws with some of my own photos and understand why editors might've been unhappy with my edits" ---Sluzzelin talk 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, and they also said that what they would do if their addition was challenged "Depends". No, it doesn't depend, especially with their history. I do not trust their judgment, then or now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken Fair point, what I meant by "depends", of course I would take it to the talk page but what if it something blatant for example, it was the wrong model or simply vandalism? I'm sorry if that sounded vague. --Vauxford (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support lifting tban per Levivich. Vikram Vincent 08:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I opposed this TBAN originally because I felt Charles01 was a large part of the original disruption (diffs provided there). Vauxford has had time to reflect and criticize their previous works, and I am glad to see that has been taken on in good faith there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I supported restricting Vauxford from the beginning as his insistence on his photos was rather disruptive. I also took umbrage at his habit of adding every single photo of his across countless other languages in an effort to get his pictures used on as many Wikis as possible. I have seen real change since then, however - to the point that Charles01, who was one of those most aggravated with Vauxford is not opposing his full return, but may actually be aiding Vauxford by posting on the Automobile Project talk page.

I actually suggested to Vauxford some time ago that he should try to get the tban lifted, but he seems to have felt it worthwhile to wait a little longer (not something the troublesome Vauxford would have done). My one reservation is derived from his opening statement here: Vauxford states that he "noticed my flaws with some of my own photos" - the problem was never the quality of the photos, it was how he went about to place them above others' photos at all cost, with long grinding arguments and repeat reversals. But perhaps I didn't catch the intended tone and meaning correctly. Anyhow, I reckon that it is safe to let Vauxford back because he is now a known entity and would never be able to cause as much aggravation as before. Lastly, Vauxford is a mere 21 years old according to his userpage. Clearly one year can make for significant changes for someone who is still learning how to shave so young.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: What a convoluted restriction in the first place; it should frankly be a shining example of how NOT to design a restriction. Compliance is of course going to be a problem with something convoluted like that. I also interpret Vauxford's admitted violation as being marginal—an editor changed images in an infobox, and Vauxford undid it. It just happened that the revert was to an image he uploaded. Should Vauxford have recognized it was one of his own images? Maybe. Depends on how many images he's uploaded and whether there are any other obvious markings.
  I also question the underlying panic over someone contributing his own images to articles, even if it's a lot of images and a lot of articles. It's not like these are bad images, nor is it like there are obtrusive self-promotional watermarks, or like Vauxford is doing the gimmick of trying to make money from Commons by putting a big old tag on his images that says "Warning! This image is not public domain! If you need a license other than CC-BY-SA, please e-mail me!" If there's a fundamental problem with the images, I'm not seeing it. Gatekeeping/WP:OWN behavior isn't good, but that's not exactly the same issue. If Vauxford is going on a revert spree to restore his own images to articles, that sounds like edit warring and should be treated as such.
  In any case, Vauxford's contrition strikes me as honest, and based on what others have said in this thread I think the editing restriction should be vacated in its entirety. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Block this vandal

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

---

This user r s g t b is constantly vandalising and removing large amount of sourced info from hindi wikipedia pages pls block him to stop further disruption

[[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]

All the case of him vandalising pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo Nihilist (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• We can't do anything on hi.wikipedia. You will have to ask the administrators there (and you have). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Time-sensitive close needed for Donald Trump

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

---

A little over a month ago, Mandruss far-sightedly opened a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump seeking to pre-write the first paragraph we should use for the page after he leaves office. I put it at ANRFC a week ago, but it still has not been closed. It's now less than an hour and a half until the inauguration, which is cutting things more than a little close. Could someone uninvolved please tie it up?

More generally, we should expect changes at a bunch of other related pages, most of which don't have as thorough planning as was attempted at Trump's page, so assistance maintaining order from anyone inclined to help out would likely be appreciated. Hopefully this transition goes smoothly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: there is no deadline for updating content, we are an encyclopedia, not the news. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I have to disagree with portions of that essay and certainly with its applicability to this sort of situation. Yes, we are not news, but for content as visible as the lead paragraph of Donald Trump, the deadlines are immediate. Failing to properly wrap up the prewriting process would likely lead to more disruption to the page than necessary, which is a tangible harm when it's getting hundreds or thousands of views per minute. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: this looks like a bunch of editorial squabbling - if something is inaccurate and no one can agree on new text - just remove the inaccurate text editorially. Without getting deep in to that big discussion - it should be very uncontroversial to change is the 45th and current president of the United States. to served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 - while everything else is being sorted out. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, no, that would be controversial. There was discussion about questions such as whether to use "was" or "served as" as the default fallback. The sentiment seems to lean toward using "was" to my reading, but I was a participant, so I shouldn't be making that judgement call. That's the roll of a closer, which is why I'm asking for one. It's not as simple as just asserting an easy answer and ignoring all the efforts of participants to work out a consensus ("editorial squabbling"). You don't have to be the one to make the close, but it'd be very nice if someone did. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I left a note on the page, an editor made a change already and it made the article "better" by removing the "is" - discussion for further improvements should certainly continue on that article talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Update: And, as predicted, the situation there is now a complete mess. Some of us are trying to figure out what's closest to the status quo, plenty of others are unable to restrain themselves from debating the content questions (someone needs to write an essay along the lines of "figure out the process before you engage in the debate"^{Update: Written. 02:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)}), and the live page is misaligned with the prevailing consensus/option closest to the status quo but the 1RR is preventing the necessary reverts. Could an adminexperienced editor please come in with less of a light touch and set things on a productive path? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just saying...why is an admin needed to settle a content dispute? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  The Bushranger, fair point. I used "admin" because of the name of this noticeboard, and because this is an instance in which we need mopping (i.e. moderation and assessment of consensus, as opposed to participation in the discussion itself), but any experienced editor could take on that role. I'll strike the word admin in my comment above, but the main point remains exactly the same. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: notably, dragging an "admin" in is likely to just get you a full protection and referred back to the talk page - I've been trying to avoid that hoping that ECP editors can collaborate better. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: All that needed to happen was for someone to assess the discussion and formalize the "no consensus, so default to interim proposal 2 as the closest to the status quo" result, which I think would have been pretty apparent to any experienced closer. That would have settled things and was what I was asking for above, but it didn't happen, which led to the mess we ended up with. It's mostly settled now, and I don't see a need for full protection, but it didn't need to be this complicated. (To note a bit of context, Mandruss, who often helps keep that talk page under control, is currently on a wikibreak, which creates a bit of a void.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I spoke too soon. The sunk costs are mounting (there are at least four talk forks now), and it seems like they'll just keep mounting until someone steps up and makes the close. This mess was predictable and avoidable—chiding editors to stop squabbling and collaborate better is not a substitute for actually making closes so that we have a shared and enforceable understanding of what the status quo is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think a "time-sensitive close" for Donald Trump is needed immediately, since he seems to have taken care of that himself for the time being. We might need one in the future, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Sdkb: Does this still need actioned and if so what still needs done? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, thanks for checking. Most of the forks have been curtailed at this point, and the discussion has coalesced in a new thread (which is not set up the best and detached from the original), so I don't see any need for immediate closes. The damage has been done, and editors are moving forward from it as best they can. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:President of Dabo and User:Republic state of dabo

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

---

• Republic state of dabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• President of Dabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• IndonesiaAltWar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ArmyOfDabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can someone please take a look at these two users? I removed user talk from one of them and placed a note about what user talk pages are for, then a day later, I noticed the other user. This may be a case of socking, or at the very least two kids having fun, and using WP as their forum. I do not have the time today to delve in to this. Also may need a Checkuser here. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also User:ArmyOfDabo, User:IndonesiaAltWar. There's a handful (as in, one hand's fingers worth) of possibly-productive edits amongst this group, but there are others that are outright vandalism [12] and it's blatantly obvious their all-but-sole purpose is to roleplay something they made up one day, including editing acutal pages to reflect it. I'm also 90% sure this is all one person using multiple accounts, and between all of this I'm blocking the lot of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you -- Alexf^(talk) 23:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

True-scientific accuracy on the Third Planet from the Sun

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

---

Please, correct on Wikipedia: BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. We have to support CosmoTerraReason, not illusion (religious or other). Finite Cosmos, finite TerraFamilyShip, finite truths, needing finite protection. Stop damaging lies! CosmoTerraSophy, still some time to learn it.Iohana4 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:ERA, either system is appropriate and we should not change the convention already present in an article. Username6892 12:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock request at RFCN

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

---

A user was blocked for their username, and I'm not overly convinced it's that bad, but I don't want to wheel war, so I've posted the matter for discussion at RFCN as the name itself is the only issue. Thoughts and input would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Theoretically not the venue for appealing a username block, per the header of that page – but now that the discussion exists and the block has been overturned, well... Closed as "allow". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Sholam Weiss

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

---

Not sure where else to post this. The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is probably the place to raise this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for revdel

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

---

Hi, sorry if this is not the right place to ask. Could you please revdel [13] and [14] per RD2? Thanks in advance! --PercyMM (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, PercyMM. Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC).

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

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-editnotice

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

---

I want to submit edit request for this interface page, however ns9 doesn't appear to be watched by many users, so I thought should I bring the edit request to this page? Or should I ask on the talk page? 54nd60x (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Submit an edit request with the usual mechanism. There are templates/categories that do track it. --Izno (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: @54nd60x: where you wish for the edit on any protected page it should be tagged {{editprotected}} and someone will see it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Promotional account Mir areiba ashraf

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

---

She is advertising her book [15] [16] and herself on pulwama page her userpage itself is promotional[17] please do something about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.197.170 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mir areiba ashraf (talk · contribs) has not posted since September. Their userpage was deleted for self-promotion and their edits have already been reverted. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Please close this pseudo-RM RfC opened shortly after ongoing RM...

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

---

RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#RfC_to_gain_consensus_for_a_follow-on_Wikipedia:RM

involved editor: Casprings

...as it's counter to WP:RFCNOT, acts as a simultaneous (quasi-)RM so it's also counter to WP:RMCM ("Do not create a new move request..."). It contains a dubious promise of a future RM and consensus but it can't build up relevant consensus to compete with the more popular RM which will be much more determinative or effective. The user who started it seems to have a negativist view of the current RM and appears to think that it will somehow be skipped over. — Alalch Emis 02:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO this whole process of choosing the best name for the article has spun out of control and someone should take decisive action one way or another. soibangla (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think closing the RfC would be an amazing start. — Alalch Emis 02:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the process has spun out of control. It seems like nothing productive is happening with the article, just these RFCs over the naming. When one RFC is closed, another opens up. Nitpicking over exactly which word to use, whether or not to use the year ... back and forth ... back and forth. I think we need intervention to discourage a new RFC the nano-second a current RFC is closed. — Maile (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is the most productive thing going on the talk page. Why close it? More importantly, I don't think this an issue where I went against any policy nor do I think there is consensus to close on the talk page.Casprings (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I would note, I used the RFC to do what an RFC is meant to do. Build consensus when there are multiple different opinions among a lot of editors. The discussion needed to be shaped in a clear way so we could come up with one title for a future move request.Casprings (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What not to use the RfC process for – ... Renaming pages (other than categories); Follow the procedures described at Moving a page or Requested moves — Alalch Emis 03:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If I understand what Casprings is saying, there would need to be a definitive agreement as to what name to move a page to, before that part could happen. And I believe Casprings is saying hey are trying to narrow it down to get to that point. — Maile (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Doing what you described is also what RM process is for, i mean it's in WP:RMCM — Alalch Emis 04:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There should not be two concurrent requests to move the page running at the same time. I have closed the request for being inappropriate. One can propose whatever parameters they see fit within the existing RM. Some more detail in my closing summary (diff). El_C 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

VeerAbhinavGurjar personally attacked me and Rajput community [[18]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo Nihilist (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume that it isn't that great, but how am I supposed to tell what it actually says? Is that Hindi? El_C 14:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Using Google Translate I got this: "Live in wikipedia while staying in position It is more read and written then come to the table and talk with the facts n figure. You are Phool" RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate, ever the poet. That does have a certain lyrical flow to it, I admit. El_C 14:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, is it not a requirement on En.Wikipedia that editors must communicate (Samuel L. Jackson notwithstanding) with each other in English? --WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Must", no, but it sure is helpful for those of us who are trying to intervene in conflicts. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, "must", yes, although we tend to turn a blind eye to the occasional lapse. ‑ Iridescent 15:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I know we're getting into pedantic nitpicking, but that says "should" not "must". Primefac (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't read Devanagari, but taking a look at GT's romanisation: Keep in your lane when editing Wikipedia. If you think you're so educated, then bring facts and figures to the table when talking. You're the progeny of those **** Mughals. For reasons that I won't list here per WP:BEANS but shouldn't be hard to figure out, I'd recommend the next sentence (with the number) be oversighted.

Translator's note: "keep in your lane" is my best attempt at translating "auqaat mein reh kar"; it's the kind of phrase my boss might tell me should I decide to question a decision of his, for example, and carries a connotation of "you lowly ____". your friendly neighbourhood Desi 16:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that part (suppressed). Primefac (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Anybody who slings "stay in your lane" at another user (which seems to be happening increasingly often) is engaging in behavior not compatable with a collaborative project IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the part translated as "You're the progeny of those **** Mughals" qualify this editor as disruptive and worthy of blocking? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk page editnotice/MediaWiki page edit request

I cannot properly create my talk page editnotice with four tildes with the nowiki markup, it automatically gets converted, what should I do? 54nd60x (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I also have a MediaWiki page that I want to request to edit, should Is nnounce on Talk page or here? When I edited it said talk pages in MediaWiki talk Namespace are not watched by many users. 54nd60x (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The first question involves a technical issue and would be better at WP:VPT. However you could try <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. For the second question, it would be better to link to the page here. By the way, your signature appears to be 296 characters, not including the time/date. That exceeds WP:SIGLEN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Resolved my SIGLEN. Now for the MediaWiki edit request, please import my changes from my sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 54nd60x (talk • contribs) 07:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Redoing ping to Johnuniq. Graham87 07:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That relates to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit. Please make an edit request at its talk page because it appears to be active and that is where people familiar with the page will expect it. You might post here if there has been no reply for a week. It would also be desirable to briefly explain the difference and why it would help (do that there, not here). Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

The Committee has received word that Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) has passed away. Accordingly, the currently open case is dismissed. We would like to express our heartfelt condolences to the family of Flyer22.

Passed 9 to 0 on 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

User:Flyer22 Frozen userrights

No. Just no. (See also: User_talk:GZWDer#Lacking_very_basic_sense) El_C 11:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See above, please remove rollbacker and reviewer.--GZWDer (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC) We generally do not remove rights from users unless it is by request or they were an administrator. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @Primefac: See Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines#On the account: "any advanced user rights of deceased Wikipedians should be removed immediately".--GZWDer (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Right, that was what I meant in my or they were an administrator statement. Neither of those are advanced user rights. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC) That is an incomplete rendering, to the point I'm not sure why you're pushing this. The policy goes on to say "User rights to be removed primarily include template editor, edit filter manager and helper, administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser, and oversight, as these rights have the most potential to disrupt the project." —valereee (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC) The account is locked. It literally cannot login, never mind use any rights. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

John C. Eastman BLP

I invite an administrator to examine the current activity of User:Jeastman on John C. Eastman soibangla (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• He was warned previously about that (and looking at the edit, the information he removed is well sourced). Partial blocked from the article. He can still use the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Is there a reason why Jeastman, who is editing John C. Eastman, and who at least based on this seems to be therefore be indicating they claim to be Eastman, isn't a {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}} case? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe they have identified themselves through UTRS. Let me see if I can find it. Black Kite (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Mmm. Can't find anything, not sure why I thought that. They've been editing the page for ten years with personal info, so I strongly suspect they are, but I suppose technically you are correct. They've posted an unblock request, btw. Black Kite (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I've delined the unblock request. Says "new to this" yet was warned about COI more than five years ago. He can use the talk page to challenge inaccuracies and suggest improvements. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Considering everything (and more caffinated than I was last night), at this point given 'time in service' I probably wouldn't block for that as such, but if a full block occurs for any other reason I wouldn't unblock without a UTRS ticket. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
          • OTRS, not UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
            • It's one of those TRSes! Thanks. I've dropped a note based on the -wellknown template on their page; if it needs refinement by all means please do so. Probably don't need a full template for Twinkle for this since I can't see "-wellknown, but not blocked" happening TOO often... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Britannica blacklisted?

I just tried to link to a Britannica search result, to illustrate usage of a particular term, and was prevented from doing so by the spam blacklist. Why? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the link was https://www.britannica.com/search?query=British+Empire. The error-message says "it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." I don't see it at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but I do see it at meta:Spam blacklist. So thanks for finding something that should be adjusted in MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. DMacks (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks: I have updated the text to Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist (wikilink'd). We may also want to consider the addition of a link to https://searchsbl.toolforge.org/index.pl?userdeflang=en&userdefproj=w so people can run a search. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks! I did not know about that other tool--it fills a need I occasionally have. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

WAG-ing, it'd be because back in the day people tried to use Britannica as a reference a lot, and as it's an encyclopedia itself, that's a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Added 7 September 2018 by User:Billinghurst, pointing to this comment as being spambot'ed. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know what WAG-ing means. Many articles use Britannica links for references, it appears to be only search results that are blacklisted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

See last entry at WAG#Other uses. DMacks (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with The Bushranger's point about not using Britannica as a source... Its articles are curated, reviewed and published, so not sure what would be inadmissible about that. It's a tertiary source rather than a primary or secondary, but I've never heard of that being disallowed and I do cite it myself sometimes in conjunction with other things. So that's news to me, but happy to be corrected. Re the OP question, I think linking to a page of Britannica search results rather than a particular page, is more questionable. Sounds like OR if nobody else has published coverage of that set of search results before... I haven't looked into the precise context though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Surely we encourage citing encycopedias and discourage citing primary sources (but people cite them anyway). I guess this is the search which is a problem here, not the Britannica itself.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) The context is a discussion on a talk page about the capitalisation of "British Empire". I wanted to shew what another well-known encyclopaedia does. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest that it is just the search that is blocked,and not the articles themselves such as this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above it appears to be only search results. I didn't want to link to each usage of "British Empire" in Britannica, but I did want to shew it being used in a variety of contexts. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Only search results are blacklisted as they are (prolific) spam targets by spambots across all our wikis where the bots have some legitimate links among the spam, presumably as a credibility attempt. If you want to give them a link, then just nowiki the link and tell them to search it, that it is not active should not matter for your use. Oh also noting that general search results in citations are problematic; compared to specific direct citation links.— billinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I ran into this recently while updating Module:Biglist. You can see what I did to make a search link work, based on the source template, Template:Search. --Izno (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: There is your answer {{search|British Empire|long=y}} (

• wp
• gwp
• g
• bwp
• b |
• eb
• co
• gct
• sw
• arc
• ht

) and point them at the "eb" link. Or just copy the "eb" link and use that alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • @Amakuru: I know of one entry where a persistent sock got their fringe view added to a Britannica article. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Like The Bushranger I had always thought that using another encyclopaedia was frowned upon, even though I do sometimes use them as references. But I see that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh, well then I suppose I sit corrected! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it may have been something Jimbo said. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP for Evelynkwapong539

The user history of this IP address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.25.166.100 seems very similar in tone to User:Evelynkwapong539, who has sock puppeted twice as User:Kof4490 and User:Memeacus. Just thought I'd bring this to light since they've been a constant editor over at Looney Tunes Cartoons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002199701 <-- This edit inn particular gave me a threat, which I know is definitely not allowed here.

Noelephant (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This behavior suggests possible block evasion by User:Evelynkwapong539. Noticing their extensive filter log, removal of references and personal attacks in edit summaries I've blocked for one month. Also semiprotected two of the affected articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Backlog

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Moxy 🍁 09:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

Hello, I came across an article about Nima Behnoud, I found a lot of bogus in that article and came across a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with the name of User:Mode iranain, that added a lot of untrue claims. I think ALL of his edits need to be undo. --Gnosis (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Gnosis I cleaned up the article a bit and nominated it under AFD. BTW this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. Do have a look at the article for more info. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Username question

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

---

Not a conduct issues, but I am of mixed feelings as to whether "User:Trixie is a hooker's name" is an appropriate username. Thoughts? BD2412 T 23:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do not believe it is, but I'm a known conservative. I say block, BD2412. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to give the editor a chance to do something about it first, though I doubt a name change would be granted given that they only have one edit. BD2412 T 23:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • A little googling tells me it may be a pop culture reference to the shows Lucifer and Californication. Slywriter (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • If so, it's obscure enough to leave a negative impression without a sense of resolution to the unwary reader. BD2412 T 01:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• We have a process for this. You've already begun it by speaking to them (you could also use {{uw-username}}, being sure to fill in why you believe it is against policy), if they keep editing and you still have concerns, WP:RFC/N is the appropriate venue to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be a personal attack on someone the editor knows called Trixie. TFD (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Something that is usually done by adding a name (with description) to the 'Notable people' section of an article. - Donald Albury 14:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Image page sandbox.png

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

---

I reupload this image page sandbox for tests, because my picture is a jpeg, not png. Can I go ahead, upload my file, and then use that as a file sandbox? 54nd60x (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Also how to make a HTML page in my sandbox (not HTML) but hides banners e.g. https://thankyou.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You/sandbox 54nd60x (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really an administrative issue, sounds like you might want to ask at WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Self-Block request

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

---

Can you indefinetly block me so I can't get distracted from Wikipedia? I need it to focus on schoolwork, and so I don't edit articles. Leave TPA so I can say when to unblock. And don't make the block temporary, make it until I request unblock. Thanks --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Wikibreak have been a better idea?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever works for whomever. I've imposed more than a few self-requested blocks, and I doubt this will be the last. El_C 15:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User insists on hoarding drafts under his username

Not an administrator thing. Please follow the dispute resolution procedures. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

---

The user Starzoner redirected my draft to a draft of his that as can clearly be seen here belonged to a draft created for another article. His actions seem inappropriate to me because he seems to insist on wanting to monopolize each and every article about upcoming movies or series under his user. I am making this report not with the intention that it be sanctioned but with the intention that at least it be notified by an administrator that its action is not correct. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How convenient to leave out a specific edit, specifically this one. This comes after I tagged it for potential history merge, and it was removed by him. Now, regarding the drafts, I have self-reverted and tagged my page for deletion. Starzoner (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the draft you are claiming was erased because you abandoned it, not for lack of notableness. Apparently you are only interested in seeing your name as the creator of the articles. How convenient for you to simply delete the page and its history so as not to leave evidence. I withdraw your request to merge histories because I consider it rather a way that you have to remain as the creator of the articles even if deleted with just reason beforehand. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you really want with this post? Starzoner (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The truth is, I just want you to realize that your actions are not correct. I also create many drafts but if they are deleted with good reason, I will not ask for deleted editions to be restored when another user creates the article. In addition, you only need to enter your discussion page to see that every day you receive messages notifying you of the deletion of drafts that are deleted because you simply leave them abandoned. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Email

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

---

Hi. I tried to apply for Rollbacker but they were denied because my email permission was removed. It was a mistake that would not happen again. Those emails weren’t meant to be sent, and I’m not going to send anything anymore. Could someone remove that block? I promise not to send anything again. And I'm still a reliable user, not those emails make me unreliable. --Maantietäjä (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is forum shopping--the user's request has already been denied by ToBeFree, for all the right reasons. And over there it was the brother who sent the email. Please get your story straight, Maantietäjä. Drmies (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The "mistake" was an account compromise. I've already asked SQL on their talk page about their opinion on converting it to a sitewide compromised account block, or removing it altogether. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have to be stopped here, I'm not dangerous. Okay, keep that block, I'm not asking for any more rights. Thanks for co-operating. --Maantietäjä (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Globally locked as they confessed their account has been compromised. — regards, Revi 13:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Talk page swap needed

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

---

.

Talk:Executive toy and Talk:Office toy need to be swapped and then the redirect one labeled as such (ET is the redirect to OT but the talk pages were not moved properly few years back). Probably need an admin for the move/ history fix? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Battle For Dream Island

Spam. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am just wondering about creating a page for the online web series, Battle For Dream Island. I don't have much experience with Wikipedia, so if someone can help create this page, that would be great. The info for the series can be found on the show's wiki site (https://battlefordreamisland.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_for_Dream_Island_Wiki) and on the YouTube channel JacknJellify where the show is posted (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeKLuqGciqZZ5RFYk5CbqXg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.65.121.158 (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC) No. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 05:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle For Dream Island (BFDI). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please block User:GBtmhwp

User blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GBtmhwp (talk · contribs · block user) Please block this troll for [19]. (Sorry for removing your comment, BMK). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC) No problem, your idea was better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)  Done. I wish there was a way to get rid of this particularly hateful troll. Maybe an edit filter? Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Speaking as an editor who met and conversed with Kevin a number of times before his death, this crap is utterly reprehensible. What kind of despicable creep holds a grudge against a young man who died about five years ago? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC) They alternate by pretending to be (symbol-named) the person in question. Hit my talk page awhile back. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC) There are edit filters in place (one of them being Special:AbuseFilter/996), though as we've all seen he knows how to get around them. This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 btw. Sro23 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC) @Cullen328: I doubt it's a grudge. More like an individual getting kicks out of being annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Not a grudge--it's much less than that, it's much lower; what GoodDay says. Imagine being that dude's parents, cause he probably still lives in their basement. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Help

Recently, a trusted contributor named LouisAragon added information to the Baloch people page, with the following revision, text- 3 to 5 million Baloch-speakers (Brill, 2011) Citing - Spooner, Brian (2011). "10. Balochi: Towards a Biography of the Language". In Schiffman, Harold F. (ed.). Language Policy and Language Conflict in Afghanistan and Its Neighbors. Brill. p. 319. ISBN 978-9004201453.

Pointer- It [Balochi] is spoken by three to five million people in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Oman and the Persian Gulf states, Turkmenistan, East Africa, and diaspora communities in other parts of the world.

But this text is not in the book-

Language Policy and Language Conflict in Afghanistan and Its Neighbors. 2011 https://books.google.tm/books?id=52aicl9l7rwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Language+Policy+and+Language+Conflict+in+Afghanistan+and+Its+Neighbors&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie2P2G7rTuAhXosYsKHdkPAesQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=snippet&q=It%20Balochi%20is%20spoken%20by%20three%20to%20five%20million%20people%20in%20Pakistan%2C%20Iran%2C%20Afghanistan%2C%20Oman%20and%20the%20Persian%20Gulf%20states%2C%20Turkmenistan%2C%20East%20Africa%2C&f=false

This text is in this book- Encyclopaedia Iranica, -Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988

https://books.google.tm/books?id=xgYZAQAAIAAJ&q=Baluch&dq=It+Balochi+is+spoken+by+three+to+five+million+people+in+Pakistan,+Iran,+Afghanistan,+Oman+and+the+Persian+Gulf+states,+Turkmenistan,+East+Africa,&hl=ru&source=gbs_word_cloud_r&cad=3

Feel the difference from 1988 to 2011, this LouisAragon Member is Iranian, very closely following the pages concerning Baloch and provoking. Ali banu sistani (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali banu sistani (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ongoing_issues_with_PragerU_page

On 7 January, Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning a multi-part dispute about PragerU. The arbitrators and others expressed the opinion that this was a content dispute, and that content dispute resolution remedies had not been exhausted. I offered to attempt to moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. ArbCom then dismissed the request for arbitration, and Noteduck filed a request for dispute resolution at DRN. This is a report on that dispute resolution. After discussion, I determined that the filing party wished to add six paragraphs to the article, and that the other parties disagreed with the additions. One of the other editors has expressed a concern that the sources are unreliable. I determined that a Request for Comments was in order. I have stated that the parties should discuss reliability of the sources in the RFC, and the community can resolve the question of reliability of the sources. Concerns were expressed about editor behavior; I collapsed those concerns, because DRN is a content forum, and resolution of content issues often ameliorates behavioral issues.

A Request for Comments with six parts has now been posted at Talk:PragerU at [[20]], and should run for thirty days. I think that none of the editors are entirely happy, and that none of the editors are entirely unhappy, and that is a satisfactory result. The RFC should then be closed by an experienced uninvolved editor. Any arbitrators or administrators can watch the RFC. I think that this should satisfy the ArbCom.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't pity whomever is tasked with closing this 28K monster RfC! Kudos, Robert McClenon, for drafting it. That is quite a feat. Though I worry that each disparate part could end up derailing the request, at the same time, with proper monitoring (not volunteering!), there's no reason why it can't be kept fairly coherent and cohesive. El_C 16:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be capable of being closed as six separate RFCs. Most of the work that I did in mediating consisted of telling the participants to Be Specific at DRN so that it could be organized into chunks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't promise I'll be around to monitor it, but I can volunteer to close when the time comes. I'll add it to my calendar, but feel free to ping me when the time comes as well. Thanks Robert for your work on this! — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Two cents: There is a problem here, as I see it, in that we have an RfC (or group of RfCs) which are all yes/no questions regarding the inclusion of specific language/sourcing... but with language/sourcing that leave something to be desired. Meanwhile, the underlying material and gist of the claims are largely WP:DUE. So we're likely to wind up with mostly "no consensus, default to exclusion" sort of results, which will make it harder to include the underlying material with more appropriate language/sourcing, or a messy "consensus to include these claims, but not with this language [or with reduced language]." I suppose that's ok, even if it means a ton more discussion afterwards, with no guarantee of resolution, but not ideal. Regardless, this page (which I've only just come across the other day), does look like it could use more attention from uninvolved editors, as there are a lot of problematic arguments (and sources) being thrown around. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism targeting relatively novel RM method

The offending post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&type=revision&diff=1002760949&oldid=1002760426

^ prior diff (the original post): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&type=revision&diff=1002511010&oldid=1002510721

Involved user: Chrisahn

This is the third or fourth time this user posts negativist comments under the heading of a technical section where comments are not meant to be posted. The user is opposed to the table tally method but instead of participating in the relevant meta-discussion where his concerns could be met with counterarguments or conceded to, he repeatedly targets this area and will not accept that, like everyone else's, his voice in matters of process belongs below the table. He appears to want to sow distrust in the process, instead of making it better. :"No consensus on the table" is a red herring. There needs not be prior consensus for every technical point of process. Rationale for the table is WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, and there are precedents for it's usage. Many administrators have seen the table and put their names in. This sort of discontent and obstruction is only coming from him, but there is a tendency for other people to reply in that area. Apart for this problem the RM is working just fine.

Proposed soluton: discretionary sanction to affirm that users shall not add comments in the area between the table section heading and the table itself, and that the content of this area is not to be changed. — Alalch Emis 23:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Additon: my comment preceding his can be deleted (update: now deleted). I only put it in to appease him and make him stop this subtle form of vandalism, but he latches onto the technicality of me posting there to post there himself. The original form of the instruction was just the first paragraph by Octoberwoodland. It might as well be that that was the best look for this area. — Alalch Emis 23:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the rationale for my post in the abovementioned area. These extra instructions (update: now deleted) were an attempt to constructively react to his earlier post, same as the offending post above. — Alalch Emis 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think users should never add others' names to the table. Your instructions explain how and when to add others' names. That's rather the opposite of my intention and thus not very constructive. More details in my response to that rationale. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I added at the top of that table (below Alalch's stuff): "Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely."

Here's what others have said about that table: Berchanhimez wrote: "the table could potentially be manipulated by someone who wants to show more/less support/opposition for something, because I don't think most people are going to be checking, and many may not even add their name to begin with." VQuakr wrote: "We have a table that represents a mix of votes and user names added to sections against their wishes. It should be tossed because it is not and will not be usable for anything." Somedifferentstuff wrote: "the fact that names were added to the table by other users is hilariously depressing." Robertiki wrote: "This table should me removed, because it implies that we have a vote instead of striving to reach a consensus."

I think Alalch didn't realize that this table idea in general and adding others' names in particular was rather contested, and that such voting tables are usually not what we do. I had previously suggested that Alalch shift down a gear and remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but I obviously failed to get through. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It was (past tense, doesn't seem actively contested anymore except by you) contested but it was discussed. What you fail to understand that the way forward is not obstruction and sowing of distrust but continuing the discussion using logical arguments. — Alalch Emis 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And, this is only half-true: (below Alalch's stuff) – that's what you added below Octoberwoodland's (or whomever that originated from, he might as well have copied it as an informal template) instructions, and only then I added my "stuff" with the best of intentions, but then you readded your disruptive comment. I can only blame myself for naively trying to appease in a slightly unconventional way; should have known that that circumstance would later be turned against me. — Alalch Emis 02:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What I meant is simply that I added my stuff below your stuff (to which Octoberwoodland had added your signature). — Chrisahn (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your first comment of this sort (diff) was below the actual Octoberwoodland's unsigned post, so it was when the table section was in a "vanilla" state. This is what I refer to. It was your reaction to you removing a user from the table, and me readding them. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: you should carefully read WP:VANDNOT and the instructions in the header at WP:ANI before posting to AN or ANI again. Basically any form of dispute resolution would be preferable here, and a sanction for someone not following your instructions on where you think they should post to a talk page is obviously not going to happen. VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't take that advice, thanks. I'll only take the resolution of this issue by an acting admin. Those instructions (update: now deleted) aren't my original invention but a paraphrase of the outcome of existing relevant discussion, and I only added them as attempt to appease Chrisahn. I can remove those instructions (update: now deleted) any time (not Octoberwoodland's, those are the part of the default setup taht was used before and is backed by precedent) but the problem of Chrisahn's subtle form of vandalism remains. The instructions are literally there (update: now deleted) to ameliorate Chrisahn's negativist attitude, and as soon as he stops unilaterally posting there, everyone else will stop too. — Alalch Emis 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:VANDNOT Chrisahn's behavior is analogous to template vandalism except we are not dealing with a formal template but a precedent-based tally method, an informal template of sorts, that might as well become a formal entity. — Alalch Emis 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Mmkay. That's unfortunate since admins don't hold a monopoly on good advice, and you are way off base here - to the extent that future you is going to look back on this with embarrassment. You are also slipping into WP:BOOMERANG territory with this violation of WP:POINT. The best thing you can do for that discussion page now is to stop attempting to moderate it. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is to stop burdening the administrator's noticeboard with irrelevant text in the form of undue opinion and repeated unsolicited advice. Become an administrator then we'll talk here. You have no standing. — Alalch Emis 02:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. I propose we block Alalch Emis per NOTHERE. Let them go elsewhere to fight whatever their fight is. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposed solution above is much simpler, I shan't reapeat it. Just protect a two inch area of the talk page. Easier than blocking me. :) — Alalch Emis 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And I posted this here because it has to do with a relatively novel RM tally that everyone seems to embrace, administrators !voting included, but it's highly vulnerable to obstruction of this type. It just needs a smidge of formality to become fairly robust, now and for the future. It's a great shame that it should fail only because the area between the heading and the table gets inundated with negativist comments. — Alalch Emis 03:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I think that would be excessive. Until about two days ago, my interaction with Alalch was fine. We disagreed on some things, but that wasn't a big deal. So far, all of Alalch's contributions are advocacy for renaming that article to "insurrection", but I hope Alalch might be motivated to be productive in other areas in the future as well. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Chrisahn, I appreciate you keeping your cool. (You too, VQuakr.) But what we have here is an editor who does one thing, one thing only, and in order to do it has to rub everyone else the wrong way, create an unworkable mess of that talk page where no one can see the forest for the trees, and then they have to start accusing others of vandalism. I don't want editors to have to put up with that. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Chrisahn I haven't in any particular way advocated for "insurrection" since the closure of the previous RM, except a simple !vote in the current RM. Maybe mentioned somewhere else in the talkpage recently but not as advocacy. Thanks Chrisahn, I'll definitely seek inspiration for other endeavors, but currently this isn't about me. I'm sure we'll interact just fine in the future. I don't want to bludgeon this convo but you can probably attest that the mess Drmies talks about is inherent to that page, and what I've done with regard to the ongoing RM and the table (I didn't put it there) is just tidying up the subsections. And I conscientiously reported this issue on this very noticeboard which was acted on. No one said then I was "moderating". As for my past participation on this website, it was fine and no one complained. — Alalch Emis 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have started a talk in Alalch Emis personal page, but after reading his answer and the present exchange, I have some doubts. Here is his edit couht, with 269 edits in the Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. --Robertiki (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You can boomerang me and gaslight me with vague unsubstantiated accusations of past misdeeds (like esteemed Drmies did) as much as you like, pronounce me a SPA, no problem, but everything I've said here is rock solid truth, and the right solution for that RM is the one I proposed, simply protecting the fragile process involving a novel method of tallying from obstruction. Nothing about me can change that simple truth. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: You're right, it's no longer about "insurrection". I struck that from my comment. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Meh. It's a busy talk page and a high edit count there, by itself, isn't indicative of a problem IMHO. There's a nonchalance that's developed on that particular talk page to refactoring, collapsing, and moving others' comments that I find concerning. Alalch has been part of that, but I'm not sure they're the main part (and they're certainly not the only one doing it). The accusation of vandalism and the weird obsession with janitors as authority figures are concerning developments. Maybe a bright-line restriction against modifying or moving others' comments and a reminder from someone with the buttons that the admin logo is a mop not a badge? VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe they'll double down to prove further patience would be wasted. VQuakr (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

An administrator can tell apart a punitive (not the subject of my request) from a protective sanction (the subject of my request), which you can't apparently. That's why you can't identify a "cunning" personal attack, which is the post I'm replying to, and I'm doing so in the most neutral way possible. One day perhaps, one day... — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Alach Emis: Your behavior on the Capitol storming talk page is verging on WP:OWN. You seem to want to control everything. Please back off from trying to run the whole discussion, and moving and hiding discussions you don't like and that don't fit your narrative. It's off-putting and counterproductive to your ultimate goal. Moncrief (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm (hopefully only this one time) posting on AN(i) to comment the following: I think this whole debacle was started by the following: A user (or users, I'm not particularly sure) in good faith created a table to provide a "straw poll" for RM outcomes based on the RM. That's all fine and dandy - nobody should have a problem with its creation. Myself, and a few other users, pointed out some potential problems with the table and RM - namely that a table wasn't particularly necessary or useful for this particular RM (not saying they're never useful), as well as the fact that the table and discussion allowed multiple (at least a half dozen) users to advocate for names involving "insurrection" - which per the discretionary sanction are prohibited from being discussed for 1 month following the failed RM from a while ago. It pains me that no administrator has stepped in to enforce that validly placed DS which enacted a moratorium on "insurrection" discussion - but that is beyond the point now. I believe the table is not useful and is potentially harmful in that anyone can edit it, and editors who came to opine and provide their commentary may unwillingly have their names added in areas they did not intend. That being said, I think this whole thing has spiraled way out of control. There are users who are in good faith attempting to clarify the table as potentially inaccurate and/or encourage users not to add other users - who are being reverted. There has been a large amount of discussion over the table issue which has been collapsed on the talk page. The table itself still has names of users being added/changed apparently without their consent (and in some cases explicitly against their wishes), which should not be allowed (at least if they've expressed a desire not to be added). My view of the situation is that the best way to resolve it is to simply trout anyone who's "gone too far", and to add a note that the table should only be added to by the user themselves, or at a minimum that users requests to not be added be respected. I further think that if the table is allowed to stand, a requirement to ping editors in the edit summary of your edit when adding/removing/changing their place in the table should be enacted. This would enable users to "verify" their name being added/changed by others (assuming they have pings enabled). TLDR: The DS enacted was great, but to be honest, the fact that more admins have not been enforcing that DS and/or helping guide this RM discussion, while it's obvious many are watching the page, is what caused this debacle. I do not intend to comment here further unless it is absolutely necessary. Please communicate with me on my talk page if further commentary from me is absolutely necessary. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I've been monitoring that page a bit (diffdiff), but am finding it quite difficult to follow at this time. El_C 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies and others: I've changed my mind. I think blocking Alalch for a day or two would be reasonable. Although several users here and elsewhere tried to explain why it's problematic, Alalch keeps policing that supposedly "off limits" area, and many of Alalch's interactions with others have been rather confrontational for several days now. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: I've recently been blocked for 30 hours myself (by Drmies, actually) for my actions on that same talk page. The fundamental reason was that I was angry about another user's actions, and my activities expressed that anger. The block helped me (and maybe the other user as well) cool down, and in the end we arrived at a reasonable compromise. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, I was very happy to unblock you. I see that El C left a warning; I hope that suffices but I'm about to have a look. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I've only had a glance at the latest. If your investigation prompts you to impose sanctions, please do not feel obliged to consult me further, or be dissuaded by my warning — its narrow scope is what it is. El_C 18:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C but I got nothing to report. Let's hope it stays that way. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Warned Alalch Emis to cease from imposing and overstepping (diff). El_C 16:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand the warning and don't contend. The situation with the area between the heading and table remains bad. I've stated my case here and have moved on. I will respond to potential calls of others to improve my input to that page but won't do anything out of the most ordinary on my own initiative. P.S. Administrator Drmies resorts to gaslighting (vague unsubstantiated accusations first, looking for evidence later) in lack of a better idea what to do. Worth noting, for posterity. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Simon nepali, repeated unsourced editing

Simon nepali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated unsourced and disruptive editing. Gave him a warning but he vowed to continue and also seems to be a bigot. Unsourced and/or targeted misinformation in

• Province No. 1
• Bagmati Province
• Gandaki Province
• Lumbini Province

SimulationWig (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Simon nepali, you are this close to an immediate indefinite block for disruptive editing, including the comments on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Simon nepali should be banned. The user is still continuing to vanadalize the pages mentioned above. SimulationWig (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Still happening at Bagmati Province. He needs a wake-up block at a minimum. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I put a warning on their talk. Let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Block review: Wilkja19

• Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Wilkja19_marking_all_edits_as_minor
• User_talk:Wilkja19#Complete_lack_of_communication

Wilkja19 is a regular editor of 3 years consistent activity with 3,368 edits, who makes mostly good edits on TV articles. In mid-December, they were reported to ANI for marking edits as minor (which is a totally useless software feature and should be removed; the only time I see it mentioned is when it's used to block editors). After discussing the technical limitations the editor faces (namely, using a crappily designed iOS app which gives zero notifications about talk messages - see T263943 + others), and an issue EEng raised regarding the minor edits, there appears to have been community consensus at ANI and VPT to do nothing about this particular issue with this particular editor, including regarding the idealistic "communication" concern, until and unless they actually start making disruptive edits, which the blocking admin has admitted they do not. Due to the unfortunate nature of the iOS app, it's possible they only see "You have been blocked." with no explanation, at the moment.

Nevertheless, a month later, on request, EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to reblock Wilkja19 for the same reason, despite the community consensus against doing so. The blocking admin has declined to reconsider, giving an essay as their reasoning and comparing this editor to an unapproved bot, which (given their editing nature and patterns) they obviously are not.

I hope this block is quickly reversed, before this good editor decides to give up on Wikipedia after multiple arbitrary "You have been blocked" messages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If they're not making mistakes, who cares? Let them mark all edits as minor and let them not use edit summaries. It may not be ideal, but if they're otherwise productive, why not be flexible? Like making sure there's a notice at the top of their talk page instructing users with urgent communication that they should contact an administrator to block them for a day or two, with the block log entry linking to the respective discussion. Obviously, that will only work if the need to communicate with them happens once in a blue moon. Maybe worth a try, though...? El_C 12:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, drive by comment but I think @ProcrastinatingReader: mentioned they might not see the full block message? If thats the case your solution would lead to an editor who from their perspective just occasionally gets blocked for no good reason. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I stand corrected. That is, indeed, a conundrum, then. El_C 12:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly the phab task says: Conclusion: Using the app is like being inside a bubble, without contacts with the exterior. It's no wonder there's so much people complaining here that using the app caused their Wikipedia account to be blocked, for reasons they don't understand.

I wonder how many editors are in the same situation but nobody has noticed yet because there was no real need for admin action on the nature of their edits (as there isn't here). Not a fan of ideological blocks, rather than realised issues. The editor doesn't edit in controversial areas or on high-profile articles anyway, nor do they edit war on (uncommon) reverted changes it seems, which puts them in a good spot for flexibility. No disruption => no block. As an aside, I don't see this case as being particularly distinct to an avg IP editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Since our Notifications system doesn't work with this stupid software, is there a way that we could automatically display the OBOD for people that are using it, as we do for IPs and as we used to do for everyone? Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I operate under the assumption that the average IP is able to see the block log entry (wherefrom a discussion can be linked) when they attempt to edit while blocked. This case is different. There simply appears to be zero means through which to WP:COMMUNICATE with this user (whatsoever). I guess it's possible that they could edit without incident, even without ever providing edit summaries and only marking edits minor minor (a separate matter on its own), but it probably isn't feasible or realistic to expect that to work long-term. El_C 15:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

They’ve managed it for 3 years, we can extend some good faith that such continues, right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, oh, I see (again) — me not doing my due diligence seems to be the order of the day.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Well, there you go. I guess that shows me. Anyway, that reasoning works for me. El_C 18:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little late, and maybe I'm missing something, but why are we still doing stuff under an assumption of 'might'? Personally I support a block of this mildly disruptive editor, as long as it's a 'might'. And yes, this editor is disruptive even if only mildly and they unfortunately aren't aware of it. There is a reason why an editor who does communicate and refuses to stop marking 4200 byte removals as minor would be blocked. If no one is willing to test it, then I don't see why we should assume that they don't see the full block log. If someone had actually tested it and found they didn't see full block log then I'd probably change my mind. After all, we know IP editors using the mobile site also don't see any indication of messages, but if I understand El C correctly they do see the full block log for their block. As is stands, this editor has be blocked for such short times we have no idea if they have ever even noticed they've been blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive (not even mildly) about marking 4200 byte removals as minor. Minor is a useless software feature which has no purpose except an "m" next to the edit in history. No experienced editor seriously uses someone's own determinations of "minor" to filter edits out of their watchlist. (+ Help:Minor edit is not a PAG). Imagine if marking as minor was all it took to get vandal edits through RC! Anyone who actually thinks about the feature, rather than just thinking "procedure => block", could never come to the conclusion that it's disruptive in the slightest.

Besides, some people will dispute even legitimately minor edits, so nothing is really "indisputable". The only time minor is really relevant is when it's used as a poor excuse to block people - that practice should stop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Editors are entitled to ask that their fellow editors use features reasonably. If you find the minor flag useless, that's you fucking choice. Just as it should be other's fucking choice to use the flag. It's utterly disgusting that you would try to harm other editors by refusing to allow them to use the features present by riding roughshod over community consensus over how they should be used. People like you who feel they can demand how others edit here are what make Wikipedia a terrible place. The fact that there will be dispute over the borderline doesn't change the fact there are certain edits which are clearly not minor. Note there is no requirement to use the minor flag. If editors don't want to mark their edits as minor they're fully entitled. All they're asked to do is to not mark edits as minor when they clearly don't remotely qualify, which is a reasonable ask. If editors can't follow that reasonable ask, then yes they don't fucking belong. In this case, since there's apparently no way to tell the editor, then yes, there's no choice but to let them be. Again that's reasonable. What remains utterly disgusting is you telling people who do wish to use the minor flag to fuck off because if your dislike of the flag. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't tell anyone to "fuck off". That is incorrect reasoning. Logically, then, it's also a user's choice what they find to be "minor". The feature is not consensus anyway (it's forced upon by the devs, and for 2020 it's archaic), nor are WP:INFOPAGES consensus: information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. There is no evidence anyone seriously uses it to filter out edits in the first place. Equally, I'm not telling anyone how to edit here, rather the opposite: I'm arguing that the idiosyncrasies of some shouldn't get another editor blocked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Actually while writing the reply below, I recalled seeing someone ask to be blocked to test the iOS app. So I looked more carefully and found Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 186#Notification to iOS app user which confirms the iOS app doesn't seem to show any info other than the editor is blocked. While I guess you could technically argue it's still "might" since we don't know what will happen for this particular editor or if it's changed since then, but IMO it's better to say "very likely" or even "almost definitely" or just indicate this is what it was like when tested. With this important clarification, I too support leaving them unblocked for now, as long as their disruption is, no pun intended, minor i.e. they're only incorrectly marking edits as minor. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked. When you block someone and the community says "unblock because this isn't wrong", you don't get to block again for an identical reason. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nyttend, you write in the block entry that the first block was overturned at ANI, but blocking admin reimposed it. But it having been "overturned" isn't immediately clear to me, though admittedly, my reading comprehension is not at top peak right now. (Also noting that, technically, the original 24-hour block simply expired in the course of that discussion.) El_C 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I'll reblock him for 1 second to say "I was wrong" and to say that I still believe the unblock justified on grounds of "this person did nothing wrong". Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose it is either technically or politically impossible to disable the ability to edit en.wiki from the WMF's iOS app? What an utterly stupid situation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the drama over 'sign in to edit', I'm pretty sure the second of those would make it a never thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    I'm pretty sure that the community's views have shifted, perhaps not all the way to consensus to do it but at least some of the way, in light of the IP masking initiative. I know mine have and I've seen others write similarly. Whether that would extend to this use case I dare not speculate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    • As I distinctly recall, the community's views weren't the issue. The community was overwhelmingly in favor of SITE. The Foundation lolnoped it with, IIRC, phrasing that was basically 'don't darken our door with this idea again or else'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

      Except I believe ptwiki hasn't been overruled by the office. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

      If we wanted to try and block IP editors on sight, it would make sense to start with those who exclusively use the mobile site since they suffer the same properly i.e. no indication of new messages. As I understand it, we don't even know if blocking is any different between iOS editors and IP editors on the mobile site since no one has actually tested what they see when they're blocked, we're just operating under the assumption of what 'might' happen. (Actually I'm sure I recall someone asking to be blocked to test the iOS app so I'm surprised we don't know.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

      Seems I was right. It was tested before and the iOS app does only show the editor is blocked without the full log entry for their block. I assume El C is right that the mobile website is better? Actually I guess I could trivially test that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

      Okay I tested it in Tor, and can confirm the mobile site does show the block log. When you try to edit, there is a "Your IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia" message and below that a "See more". Clicking on the see more will show the details e.g. "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider."

      I will give one final comment which is that there's a reason I harp on about IP's editing from the mobile site all the time. This is IMO a major flaw in the mobile site. But cases like this in particular suggest IMO one of the areas we treat editors with an account different from those editing from an IP. I'm fairly sure I've seen IP editors with very minor fairly inconsequential misbehaviour blocked even though they edited exclusively from the mobile site and never used their talk page and are probably completely unaware of their new messages.

      Indeed I'm fairly sure there are a bunch of admins who aren't even aware of this flaw in the mobile site, I'm not an admin but I never came across it on AN//I etc until IIRC about 1 year ago. Actually one time I raised the issue, someone just said 'don't use the mobile site', but how is that a solution to the problem of those who do? (I do occasionally, but never as an IP so the flaw is irrelevant to me.)

      Okay they do see the block log but AFAICT, until now this thread and indeed the previous one has been mostly based on assumptions of what they might see, and not the test showing they don't see the block log. IIRC, the one or two times I've seen the issued of IP editors not any sign of new messages raised, no one mentioned that IP editors of the mobile site do see the block log.

      And yeah for all this selfish talk about how clear misuse of the minor flag doesn't matter because some editors don't like the flag, I'm confident if this had been an IP editor they probably would have suffered many long blocks by now, with few caring they're in nearly the exact same situation. (I'm putting aside the block log issue given my point about how uncertain it was. But it'll accept that the only real way someone could keep marking edits as minor from an IP on the mobile site would be to intentionally tick the box or have some weird browser plugin, perhaps an accessibility one.)

      I think I'll leave this thread with that given how angry it's made me.

      Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

      Nil Einne, just a note — your minor-edits-by-an-IP scenario isn't technically possible, since one can't mark edits as minor without being logged in. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

      About IP editors more generally however, T240889 is interesting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Continuously marking all edits as minor even when they are not is disruptive editing. Its specifically called out in WP:VAND as a tactic to look out for when it comes to vandalism. The problem is when someone does it, and the edits are *not* minor, and they are *not* vandalism, is that they either will be ignored by those who arnt looking at minor edits (this may include also include bots) and so the content wont be reviewed, or they will be looked at more closely by those who are familiar with how vandals operate - making more work for others than just by editing normally. The solution is to get the editor to stop marking all their edits as minor, not ignore it and let it continue. Because once this discussion disappears into the archive, the next time someone complains about it they will risk getting blocked again. If this is a specific issue to an individual editors use of particularly technology, this is their problem that needs to be solved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Continuously marking all edits as minor even when they are not is disruptive editing. Its specifically called out in WP:V as a tactic to look out for when it comes to vandalism. I presume you meant WP:VAND (as WP:V does not mention minor edits). Here is what WP:VAND has to say about minor edits, in both instances where it is mentioned. Are you referring to something else?:

  • Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by causing bad faith edits to go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists Neither of which applies here, as they are obviously not bad faith edits, and they're obviously not a bad faith edit followed by a minor edit to obscure it. Obviously no gaming going on here.
  • The edit summary is important in that it helps other editors understand the purpose of your edit. Though its use is not required, it is strongly recommended, even for minor edits, and is considered proper Wikipedia etiquette. Even a brief edit summary is better than none. However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism. -- self explanatory ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that in order to determine they arnt bad faith, you actually have to look at them. Which you likely wouldnt have, if they hadnt been marked as minor. You cant tell there isnt any gaming going on without again, looking closely at them. Its the act of forcing other editors into doing more work than they otherwise would have that is the disruptive part, not the actual edit itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If people ignore edits just because the editor decided to mark them as minor, it would be very easy to get away with vandalism on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

So when I say it makes more work for others checking minor edits, your response is they should be checking all minor edits anyway? Glad you have a healthy respect for your fellow editors free time. Feel free to go propose a change to WP:VAND then, or attempt to get the WMF to remove the minor edit function. I look forward to your success. Marking edits continuously as minor aside, they also have zero communication with other editors, on their talk page, or article talkpages. That is not acceptable. They are required to interact with other editors. If the issue was not about minor edits, but some other problem, and they refused to respond over an extended period of time, they would end up blocked. Plenty of examples in the archives for you to look at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the point of the gaming section is that minor edits deserve equal, if not more, scrutiny, because vandals often mark as minor to obscure the real nature of their edit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of having a "minor edit" designation in the first place? If the point is that I'm supposed to ignore "m" edits on my watchlist, well I'm not going to do that, because "m" edits can be as wrong, disruptive, or destructive as a "major" edit. Now if an editor with whose editing I am familiar, and whom I find trustworthy, puts "typo" or something similar in the edit summary, I'm going to probably skip looking at that edit, but not someone I don't know. The whole purpose of a watchlist is to watch the articles on it and prevent them from damage, and the "m" marking just doesn't enter into it at all. I think it's a worthless designation and should be scrapped as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And even if the "m" designation is kept, the "Mark all edits as minor" preference is entirely counter-productive and should be eliminated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it has been eliminated but might still active for some accounts. See phab:T26313. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I'm behind the times. Considering what "the times" have been like lately, not necessary a bad thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple failed attempts

have been made on my account. I wish them l luck. Will check my contribs and change to be safe. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I got one yesterday, too. Though I get them with some regularity, it's usually no more than once every month or two, so that is an odd happenstance. El_C 15:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have a secure password, there's no need to change it. A safe password will have megagigabazillions of possibilities, so who cares if someone's tried five or six of them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That is, indeed, the right way to look at it. El_C 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You could ask the person trying to compromise your account for a list of the passwords they've tried, then change your password to one of those! Extra-secure, since you know they won't try that password again. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But what if someone else repeats that same string at some point in the future? Kaboom! El_C 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Enabling 2FA will help prevent unauthorized access, as well. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And help prevent authorized access also, User:Nihonjoe, e.g. when I lose, or lose sight of, the complex and baffling accessories belonging to 2FA and am unable to log in. It's happened to more tech-savvy admins than me. Just get yourselves a properly strong password and don't use it anywhere else, people. That's what I think of 2FA. Bishonen | tålk 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: You can use web-based tools like 1Password so it's not limited to a single device. As long as you can access 1P, you'd be able to use the 2FA. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As before, if one has a long, random password, their account will not be lost to bruteforce. Don’t make a password based on things close to you (ie the name of your pet), don’t reuse passwords across multiple sites, don’t use a single word as a password (or something else basic). Long and random characters, or multiple random words in series, and the password will never be lost to bruteforce. Changing ones password just because someone decided to guess doesn’t really help. There’s 62 alphanumeric characters (both cases), excluding symbols (which could also be used). That’s already 5.9 * 10^53 possible combinations (for a 30 char password) via bruteforce. It’s just not happening.

I suspect whoever is guessing passwords is either guessing a “common passwords list” in hopes of something sticking (it usually does, since most people have awful security), or just doing it because they like the attention of frequent login attempt sections. Probably both. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Heh. If the would-be password crackers are reading: my password is absolutely, positively un-guessable, so short of telepathy, you stand zero chance and are simply wasting your time. El_C 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• The complexity of a password is no defense. If it is intercepted in transit, or from one of the endpoints (your computer or any website where it has been used), your privacy is at risk. We must stop using shared secrets entirely. User authentication should be done with a public-private key pair or a password protocol that uses a zero knowledge proof to avoid transmitting the password. Some examples include SRP protocol and Schnorr NIZK. Jehochman ^Talk 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's generally encrypted in transit. And encrypted at rest on the endpoint website (at storage time anyway, not at verification). User authentication across software in general could do with improvements, personally I happen to think the username/password system is dated, but I think this may be outside the scope of the administrators' noticeboard lol ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• 2FA is great in theory. I use it for all critical logins. However, the 2FA here is, to quote, baffling. And it need not be. I know any thingamajig I'm supposed to save on my own I will lose. What other sites do is email me a confirmation code that I then enter. Simple. Nothing for me to lose. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  If you're sure your email isn't going to be compromised, just email yourself the secret. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

CHUBot / Cyberbot I

CHUBot, a task of Cyberbot I, which clerks the WP:CHU pages has been repeatedly blanking WP:CHU/S. I disabled it at 20:31. Despite that the task ran again 00:20 and 00:50 when it blanked the page again.

As the CHUbot task isn't responding to its stop button I've blocked the bot Cyberbot I (talk · contribs). -- Cabayi (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cabayi, and thank you. Just a reminder — when blocking an approved bot for misbehaving, please disable autoblock and don't disable account creation, since those can affect the bot owner. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nyttend, unlikely since I'm an admin. :p —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, not necessarily :-( See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_160#IPBE_and_autoblocks, where I autoblocked myself and couldn't undo it. If you'd logged into the bot account while it was blocked, you may not have been able to edit from your admin account. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nyttend, I guess it's a good thing that I don't, but it may have the unfortunate side effect of blocking other bots on that IP as it belongs to the WMF cloud service. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Political Additions after Jan. 21, 2021

While looking at a page for John James Beckley, I found a revision that mentioned "Chinese/American Xho Bai Den". I searched this name and found it on several edits after Jan. 21. All references the article subject being disappointed about a "chinese/american" now being in charge of the country. Be on the lookout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4702:6501:195D:B77:3F93:C0B4 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If this persists I think an edit filter would be an obvious solution. (In case it's not obvious to everyone, this is supposed to be Joe Biden rendered in Chinese. What a hilarious joke!) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The one I've usually seen is "Xiden". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald1972 unblocked

Following an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Donald1972 (talk · contribs) has been unblocked, subject to a restriction from editing the Matthias Laurenz Gräff article. Maxim_(talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Donald1972 unblocked

Requesting TBAN for AmPol and COVID

Per this edit, put in place an indefinite duration topic ban for post-1992 American Politics and COVID-19, broadly construed, for myself. I don't think there's any difference for voluntary bans, but I desire to be subject to the same appeal requirements as an involuntary ban. Thank you. Jdphenix (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be my suggested language "Jdphenix is topic-banned from post 1992 American politics and COVID-19, broadly construed. Violations will be met with escalating blocks. They may appeal this topic ban in no less than six months, and once every six months after that." That's pretty standard. Does that work for you? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Thanks. Jdphenix (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Consider it  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin help needed at CAT:RFU

I am aware that we are all volunteers here and I'm not trying to harass or pressure anyone, but there is a significant backlog at WP:RFU and I've already reviewed many of the requests or they are beyond my expertise, so if anyone is available to help out, it would be appreciated; I've tried to keep the backlog down but it keeps creeping up. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean CAT:RFU? WP:RFU isn't backlogged. Hut 8.5 12:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I tried keeping it on a single-figure level for a month, if I remember correctly. It's amazing how quickly this builds up again. When you think the category is clear and wake up the next morning, it has returned to the state of the previous morning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. I think the big problem is, as 331dot identifies, some of the requests just aren't straight-forward accepts or declines, and so tend to linger on in the backlog as nobody wants to take action. I plan to do a full pass over all the requests this weekend (to end out January) and I'll probably decline any long-standing requests that I don't feel comfortable unblocking. That's on the assumption that no other admin has seen fit to take action on these long-standing requests, either, so (hand-wave hand-wave) the consensus is the unblock request is insufficient. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be very helpful, thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll swing by later today, and see what I can help with. SQL^{Query me!} 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking to create a "draft" of a category

Greetings. An category that I had been working on Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent was recently deleted via WP:CFD. While I was advised by the closing admin to go to WP:DRV to appeal this deletion, I decided such a route is not preferable at this time. Rather I'd like some way to "incubate" the concept of a particular category somewhere for the time being in a public space to allow for concurrent review by other WP editors. There currently no AFC of Draft program available for categories, and when I tried creating a double namespace url "Draft:Category:", it told me to come here to request creation of the page. Thanks for everyone's and attention.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Prisencolin, my main question would be why you think creating this draft category page would be useful; not only was there a pretty strong consensus to delete the category, but also the category page itself had little more than a one-line explanation. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

If you look at the earlier discussion here there were a few more votes opposing deletion. My main concern is that there is not proper space to work on deleted categories after they've been deleted. As far as the definition of the category goes, there is an article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong, which describes in much greater detail what the category is about.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• What all is there to do in drafting a category anyway? The description page? Make it in userspace like you would any other userspace draft. The list of articles you'll include? Same.
  I concur with Primefac, though, that it's extremely unlikely that there's any amount of work you can do that would result in a different outcome were the category recreated. To be honest, the policies and practices underlying categorization confuse the hell out of me, and probably should be examined by the greater community in some way. I suspect, but haven't looked, that the consensusmaking at CFD may be a sort of walled garden. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Inclusion criteria mostly, and like you mentioned the articles I would include. I still think there was honest misunderstanding about what the category was supposed to entail, and I tried in vain to show that this is not some kind of category that could be rife with corner cases.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T273317

Are there any other admins who are unable to apply pending changes at the moment? I have the option to apply semi-protection, and when I click "unlock further portection options", move protection becomes available. Pending changes, however, remains greyed out and unclickable. This is just another set back in a series of extremely irritating changes that have afflicted me today, including being unable to use the "start a new section" tab without it launching a "topic box" that doesn't include any of my wikimarkup buttons or scripts. I've checked WP:VPT and don't see anything recent covering the changes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo, I've had the same problem happen to me (not often, but every once in a while) for years and years now. Luckily, it didn't take me long to figure out a work-around. I click on the question mark above the pending changes header in the protection window, which takes me to WP:PC, then I go back, and viola! Now the pending changes option becomes clickable (full disclaimer: 90 percent of the time I remove rather than add it, but that is a conversation for another time). Anyway, maybe that'll also work for you...? El_C 22:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Alas, no. I've logged out and back in again and still no joy. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C 22:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not having any issues at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: can you duplicate this? If so please post over at WP:VPT and we'll check in on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly the same issue that has caused some editors to loose autoconfirmation? DrKay (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: that seems unlikely - please post over at WP:VPT and/or open a phab ticket with details of what you are seeing so it can get followed up on. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to double post. The current discussion there is sufficient. DrKay (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: what do you mean by some editors to loose autoconfirmation? Are they no longer a member of autoconfirmed, and getting hit with things like CAPTCHAs? Or are they only having a problem with autoaccept as reported in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Some_pending_changes_edits_which_should_be_auto-accepted? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean the autoaccept problem. DrKay (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reports, this looks like more technical issues related to phab:T234743 and its subtasks. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Userspace question

I've just had a vandal (Turd 2 curd) create number of pages in my userspace with abusive content and edit summaries. I've requested oversight for the edit summaries, and I've tagged all the files with "db-vandalism", and the user is indeffed, but I'd like to know if there's any way to prevent anyone from creating files in my userspace aside from myself, in case they return. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In theory, we could add your userspace to the title blacklist (which would also prevent you from creating pages, unless either we only restrict it to autoconfirmed people only or you become an admin or account creator or whatever), but historically, that has only been done in the most extreme cases AFAIK. Apart from that, I don't think so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I had never heard of such a thing, I suspected as much. Oh, well, I'll just deal with any repeats on an ad hoc basis. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, report, block, ignore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, that looks like Evlekis to me. I second the RBI advice. Pahunkat (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... If so, wonder what put the burr up their behind? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, I guess it's just Evlekis. Also, see Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#Filter 733 in terms of vandals creating pages in other people's userspace. Pahunkat (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Contentious AFD at Michael Sayman

• Michael Sayman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Purplehippo458 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The previous two AFDs deleted the article, and the second AFD was closed on 12 January 2021, but the article was then re-created by Purplehippo458 on 30 January 2021. The second AFD was heated, with one editor demanding that another editor be blocked (and the closer, correctly, saying that AFD does not block editors). The third AFD is heated, and two editors filed requests at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard requesting assistance within an hour of each other, one saying that additional editors were needed to participate in the AFD, and the other saying that they thought that there had been off-wiki canvassing. These requests were closed because DRN is not a deletion forum, because DRN is not the forum to report canvassing, and not the forum to do canvassing. I am reporting this here at WP:AN because, first, AN is the forum to report contentious discussions that need admin attention, and, second, AN is the forum to report possible off-wiki canvassing. (I have no evidence of canvassing, but am only noting the mention of canvassing.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia user using alternate account to call Polish Wikipedia editors to Axis Powers

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

---

It has been a while, and I hope this is the right board. Over at the Polish Wikipedia, User:Hanyangprofessor2 which is a User:Piotrus alternative account, posted this call to arms. Piotrus is blaming "Russian editors" for comparing the USSR to Poland and "starting a vote" at en: Talk: Axis_powers # Poll. Piotrus is calling Polish editors to vote and saying that if English is a problem they should: "the Google translation from Polish to English works very well, right button in Chrome and you can translate the whole discussion, and it is also easy to translate your comment / voice from Polish to English and paste there".--Bob not snob (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think there's much that can be done from this Wikipedia project. Is there a similar discussion being started over at Polish Wikipedia for the admins there to look at? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not against the rules of Polish Wikipedia to point a link at the English Wikipedia and asking editors to post comments on English Wikipedia through Google translate. The disruption to voting is on the English Wikipedia, at Talk:Axis powers#Poll. The labeling of English Wikipedia editors as Russian editors is troubling.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As a call for arms?! lol... I don't see that, come on :). I can read Polish. Piotrus asks if anyone is interested in the topic and if yes, they invite them to discuss and vote. He doesn't say, "Go there and vote!" Below is the entire post translated to the best of my abilities:

Was Poland an ally of Hitler? Ok, a bit of a shocking title, but on the en wiki in the article en: Axis powers, there is a vote about it (en: Talk: Axis_powers # Poll). It started with a discussion about the USSR. Still, Russian editors are trying to compare the USSR to Poland (Invasion of Poland to Polish participation in the partition of Czechoslovakia, etc.) And they made a vote (they want to eliminate the USSR from the infobox, section as 'Co-belligerence' - I don't know how to translate it into Polish, google gives me współwojowniczość, en: Co-belligerence there is no interwiki for pl, it is about acting on the same side / against the same enemy but without an alliance or adding Poland there. Maybe someone will be interested in this discussion? Feel free to comment/vote, and if English is a problem, then Google translation from Polish to English and the other way around works very well. In Chrome, you can use the right button, and you can translate the whole discussion; and it is also easy to translate your comment/voice from Polish to English and paste it there.GizzyCatBella🍁 08:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, this very much is an issue for English Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if the canvassing was at another Wikipedia project or an unrelated web site, or even down the pub (if such places were open). It is still against our rules, as Piotrus full well knows. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Ah, my eyes neglected that it took place on an English Wikipedia talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Even in my ignorant corner of the world, I know what "Russian editors are trying to..." is calling for. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Piotrus needs to explain this timeline:
  • 02:54, 31 January 2021 Piotrus edited at enwiki.
  • 03:05, 31 January 2021 Piotrus posted at plwiki.
  • 03:16, 31 January 2021 Hanyangprofessor2 posted the plwiki comment.
  • Entering "Hanyangprofessor2" at toolforge shows no other edits since 14 Jun 2020 (and that was at enwiki); it was 29 Nov 2019 when Hanyangprofessor2 last edited another project.

  Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Bob not snob That's a long break you had; the last time you were active was September 8th [21] now you came back 5 month later straight to reporting [22]. I’m guessing you are monitoring reporting procedures[23] that’s good. In any case, welcome back. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Please be aware that Bob not snob claims, "I came here after seeing this call to arms on the Polish Wikipedia" [24] but they have no edits on Polish Wikipedia. Also, it's important to know that Piotrus has been subject to significant harassment by a user running sock-farm who got banned by Trust and Safety (global ban). I wonder if that sudden account switch by Piotrus has anything to do with that, not sure...I’m curious what Piotrus has to say as far as your concerns. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It reads like rules lawyer friendly canvasing to me, a clear request to join in (and yes it does say vote) to stop "Russian" (as in me, not Russian) (a PA) editors from winning the debate. It a POV loaded call to arms.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned on Piotrus' talk page (Soliciting support at pl is canvassing, by definition), this WP:CANVASS violation in a topic which falls under the WP:ACDS (WP:ARBEE) regime is highly problematic, and probably should result in sanctions. Not sure what these should be at this point in time, but I, for one, do not feel a mere warning would suffice, in this case. I am about to WP:ECP the article talk page for the duration (an extreme measure, to be sure), which I will also note there. Sorry, but to be honest, I'm quite speechless. El_C 17:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A shot term TBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• As someone who deals with the results of canvassing on a regular basis (see for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Attack on Stepan Bandera, likely externally coordinated where I essentially was told by the canvassed users that they have a perfect right to do whatever they want), I have a hardline stance here fully realizing that it is not going to be popular. I essentially believe that external canvassing creates evasion of WP:CONSENSUS and, what it worse, creates an impression that one just needs to canvass to a hot discussion a dozen (or, ideally, several dozens) of their friends and then nobody needs to care about the strength of the arguments. I therefore consider canvassing a blockable offense, and, even more, I would recommend blocking the users who have been clearly canvassed to the discussion (not being regular en.wp editors recently, but being regular editors of the project canvassing has taken place). Again, I do not expect this to be a popular opinion, but wanted to make it heard at least.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I must say that I agree with El_C's disppointment here. We had a discussion that was coming to its obvious common-sense conclusion that of course Poland shouldn't be regarded as a "co-belligerent" with the axis powers, but the discussion was then polluted with this canvassing. What the fuck were you thinking of, Piotrus? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ten years since WP:EEML, the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I, for one, am surprised because I didn't know EEML existed. El_C 20:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm learning something every day on Wikipedia...I keep thinking about it... at first, I thought this is just a natural thing to connect with other editors who might be interested in the topic... I still believe that the message itself wasn't awkward because Piotrus never told others how to vote or what to say. He simply told them what is going on....but a similar note should be given to the Russian Wikipedia since the Russians were mentioned (when I think about it)... to get the opportunity for the other side to voice their opinion...(if there is that another "Russian side"..) IDK... Did you ever think about it Piotrus? Yeah, I'm so curious what he has to say. Piotrus is such a valuable and well-balanced editor.. It would be so sad to see him sanctioned for this slip. Oh Gosh... - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • GizzyCatBella, are you saying you didn't know EEML existed? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@SarahSV No, I knew it; I just didn't pay much attention to it. I did some reading about it now, but that's old stuff. I referred to posting any notes on other Wikipedia's and that this might be a sanctionable offence. Now I know :) I'm learning something every day. Hey guys, if a Wikipedia user has, for example, a Twitter account and post similar note as a tweet, is this regarding as offence as well or this only applies to Global Wikipedia? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I recall during an AE in May 2020 discussing how your early edits restored Poeticbent's versions of articles. I'm sorry, I find it impossible to believe you're not familiar with EEML. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sarah... I said I knew it. Did you read what I wrote? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And I believe you haven't only heard of it but are deeply familiar with it. Now that El C is aware of it too, attitudes may change. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• • I believe there is not a single Russian Wikipedia participant in the linked discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • At same time it looks like there may be ONE account !voting there that is there because of the post, out of couple dozen. The rest is all en-wiki regulars of the topic area. So it looks like it really had no effect (except for this here) - pl wiki and en wiki are just two different worlds. Volunteer Marek 21:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I should also add that it looks like Ymblanter is correct, not just here, but in general. The whole "Nazi Germany and Poland were actually allies" IS in fact Putin's propaganda of the last few years, which I'm guessing is the connection here, but I've never seen any Russian editor on en-wiki pushing that line. Volunteer Marek 22:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The whole "USSR and Nazi Germany were allies" might, conversely, also be a position which is not quite accurate. Nevertheless, going over the criteria of WP:CANVASS, the post by Piotrus is clearly biased and inappropriate, and given that it might be based on the assumption that Polish editors would rush to prevent any "Russian propaganda", it might as well be considered an attempt at vote stacking. The Eastern Europe area has clearly been and remains a tricky area, and editors promoting various personal viewpoints which are very thinly sourced is certainly not helping the matter; and well ArbCom might have to get involved again, especially if there are further more serious breaches of behavioural policies such as this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

First, I apologize for using the unfortunate term 'Russian editors'. I posted the message without proofreading it. In the hindsight, I shouldn't have made any assumptions, generalizations, or comments about other editors, my bad. Again, sorry about that. I refactored this on pl wiki.

Second, I don't think crossposting information about an RfC to another wiki violates any guidelines? I think my post was limited in scale, neutral, (well, I could've formulated that one above-mentioned part better, my bad), nonpartisan (I posted to the Polish equivalent of the WP:MILHIST noticeboard, which I have nor reason to believe is infested by partisan editors, unless one thinks Poles in general - or Russians - should not participate in this discussions about Poland or Russia at all...) and open to the public (and scrutiny). I didn't tell people to vote in a specific way, I just informed them that a discussion and a vote are happening, per Linus's law - the more people participate in a discussion, the better, that's the point of an RfC in the first place, after all. If I spoke Russian I'd have crossposted a similar note to Russian Wikipedia too. I am hardly in a habit of posting such cross-wiki notifications, and if anyone thinks I could've done this better, I'd appreciate further advice on best practices regarding cross-wiki notifications of RfCs.

Third. I used a recognized and publicly disclosed alternative account since for over a year now I've been subject to some serious harassment, on- and off-wiki, originating from an editor who is now globally banned (by WMF's Trust&Safety) but has kept on socking (see relevant SPI here). The harassment lessened in the last few months, so hoping fo a closure, I figured out that if my edits are still being closely stalked (as they were before), my post would elicit a reaction (since part of said harassment pattern included bogus AE/ANI reports, see for example JolantaAJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); and what made me decide to test if this stalking continues was an appearance of a possible sock that IMHO matched the behavioral patterns of the sock master in question. So I decided to make a post that would not violate any rules but that I was sure my stalker, if aware of it, would try to misrepresent and use to cause trouble for me. I thought I was being overly paranoid, given it was an obscure forum and I used a mostly dormant alternative account, but instead of the hoped-for closure to my stalking incident, alas... a new suspicious account activated, made an inflammatory talk page referring to my cross-wiki notification as a 'call to arms' ([25]), claimed to have seen my post on pl wiki despite never editing it before, and reported me here. Now, Bob account was registered on 2019-11-05. Identified socks of my harasser from what I think of the 'first sock wave' include: I dream of Maple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2019-11-09), KasiaNL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2019-11-18), AstuteRed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2019-10-26). Smoking gun? Perhaps not. But food for thought, perhaps?

Anyway, I apologize if my actions were improper. The year-long stalking/harassment I've been experiencing has been very stressful, and perhaps in my attempt to prove to myself my stalker is gone, I went a bit too far with that sock fishing rouse. I will avoid such stupid stunts and do my best to adhere to best practices again just like I've done for years past.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I learned of WP:EEML a couple of days ago from User:Catlemur posting that is almost prophetic. Back at the EEML case, Piotrus made promises never to CANVASS again. And yet here we are.--Astral Leap (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I learned of EEML a couple of days ago - Let me be clear here. Are you sure about that Astral Leap? Did you learn about EEML just a couple of days ago, or did you know about it before? Like ... maybe ... from being on the list yourself? Was your "crime fighting dog" on there too? Volunteer Marek 02:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This gets weirder and weirder by the second. Who is "crime fighting dog"? Did he changes his username too? I was not on EEML, I was not active then. But you, Volunteer Marek, were. old username redirects to User:Volunteer Marek. EEML has: finding for old username and topic ban for old username.--Astral Leap (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

VM, you just reverted, with the edit summary "undo an attempt to intimidate via doxxing", AL's edit that pointed out you were a party to the EEML case under a previous username (which of course wasn't doxxing because your previous username is public, yours is not a WP:VANISHed or WP:CLEANSTART account, and your being an EEML party is of course relevant since you've chosen to comment here)... and then in your very next edit, you insinuate that AL was, like you, a party to the EEML case. The hypocrisy! Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivch, I strongly suggest you refrain from and strike your personal attack. Accusing someone of "hypocrisy!" is a personal attack. It's also false as I'm sure you well understand. Astral Leap did not edit Wikipedia under his real username, not now nor not when he was on the EEML list. I did, back in my naive days, did edit under my real name. Part of the reason I changed my username is precisely because of real life harassment. Now Astral Leap is trying to exploit that fact by gratuitously linking to the redirect page for my old username. Not once. But repeatedly. He's rubbing it in. He's using it as an intimidation/harassment tactic. He could've made his point without doing that. But he chose not to. He's doxxing And I'm fairly certain you're aware of this what the situation is. So. Why are you enabling him and supporting him in this? This is pretty shameful. Volunteer Marek 03:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Heinous personal attack. I started the RfC. I am not Russian. "They made a vote" refers to me. Calling me Russian is a vile ethnic based personal attack, in addition to this blatant transgression of Piotrus's past assurances. I propose concrete proposals of actions below.--Astral Leap (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Astral Leap, I didn't realize you were the creator of the RfC. I am not sure I fully follow why calling someone a Russian would be "a vile ethnic based personal attack" (I know some Russians who may take an offense at that), but in either case, I apologize for causing any offense. I see you have been on Wikipedia for barely a year now. Congratulations on figuring out how to use tools like RfC, AN(I) and like so quickly, it took me years to get there. We are all here to build an encyclopedia. Have you read WP:AGF yet? Let's try to be friends. Again, no offense was meant, against you or anyone else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  I am not Russian, I am not Polish, I am not Australian. Calling me something that I am not is a personal attack. I propose below actions based on Ymblanter's proposal, WP:EEML#Digwuren restricted, WP:EEML#Piotrus topic banned, and WP:EEML#Piotrus banned.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  I also voted against including Poland in the infobox, I added Poland after it was brought up by Catlemur and TheTimesAreAChanging, and pushed into the article by Erin Vaxx. I think adding Poland should be quashed in the same vote as the USSR dispute. So posting on Polish Wikipedia that I am part of a conspiracy to add Poland is false too.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Astral Leap, Nothing is white and black, indeed. You may note that I actually voted for including the Polish section in the article's body, and supported, on the same talk page, the inclusion of said new section about Polish diplomatic cooperation with the Axis pre-war, despite said section being written by a very new account (Erin Vaxx, account created last September, Total edits so far: 28, and whom you yourself describe as "having pushed... Poland... into the article"), and having been criticized by some other editors as disparaging or unfair to Poland. It's good to find the middle ground. And of course, there is no conspiracy and I certainly haven't said one exists (or that you are part of it). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Astral Leap I recognize that you are under a one-way interaction ban with me, so I apologize to you AL. I know you can't defend yourself concerning my criticism. I believe that one should not use it as an edge and avoid commenting on the sanctioned opponent out of respect. So please don't see it like that; I still respect you. However, I have to mention that this comment of yours is offending[26]. I have a Russian among my ancestors, and I'm offended. What's wrong with being Russian? Definition of a personal attack is a "Derogatory comment". Calling someone Russian is not derogatory. I'm also still surprised how much knowledge you display - and how much you care about EEML. For someone who joined the Wikipedia project 11 months ago...anyway, I understand you can't answer, so please just note my criticism. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• As a participant in the Axis discussion, I would like to say that this episode is being blown way out of proportion by bad-faith editors, very possibly sock puppets, scenting blood and gunning for Piotrus, who not only is a valuable editor, the author of over a thousand DYKs and dozens of FAs and GAs, but has apologized for a minor transgression that didn’t even materially affect the discussion outcome. Perhaps a warning is in order, at most — and then I would encourage administrators to do some thorough checks on these new accounts, inexplicably expert in arcane Wikipedia procedures. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Biruitorul, Thank you for the kind words. Having considered the comments by various uninvolved editors here, I see how the cross-wiki message was inappropriate, and I can only apologize for this error again and promise to exercise better judgment in the future. For understanding best practices, I would appreciate community advice on whether it is advisable not to make such cross-wiki notifications at all, or would it have been fine if I also notified the Russian Wikipedia? Or perhaps I missed another best practice step here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  I thought I had seen everything when Piotrus fulfilled Catlemur's 30th January prophecy of WP:EEML. Then Biruitorul defends Piotrus, and I see Biruitorul was in EEML too: WP:EEML#Biruitorul, WP:EEML#Biruitorul topic banned.--Astral Leap (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Astral, thank you for bringing those personal attacks and battleground insults from Catlemur to everyone's attention. It looks like a block would be in order against that user. I'm not clear why you would want to cheer on that user's disruptive behavior here and engage in it yourself. Volunteer Marek 02:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Once again you are threatening to get me blocked, all while churning excuses for people engaged in clear cut canvassing and other offenses that are far worse than NPA (assuming it took place). If you want to morally police WP maybe try and treat all parties involved equally.--Catlemur (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am shaking my head in disbelief, how many editors from EEML comment here? old username redirects to User:Volunteer Marek. EEML has: finding on old username and topic ban on old username.--Astral Leap (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, there's all kinds of editors who were on EEML commenting here. Volunteer Marek 04:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) [Sorry, still writing in haste, so briefly:] Comeon, Piotrus, I think you know (or ought to know) that WP:ACDS (or WP:GS) matters are different. Say I'd consulted only the Hebrew Wikipedia about, of the top of my head: Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine#Israeli_data_(Jan_28) — that would be totally fine. But doing the same for something involving, say, Israel and the apartheid analogy while neglecting to do the same for the Arab Wikipedia... Well, need I say more? Anyway, I don't even understand why a another-language wiki even needs to be informed about what we're doing here at en, in the first place. What's it to them? El_C 02:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  El C, You are right. I could repeat my excuse that I was stressed with other stuff, but the fault is mine. I should have translated and crossposted my notification to ru wiki milhist project too (and that would also ensure it would be more neutral to boot). I will certainly do my best to ensure all parties are notified next time (or just avoid cross-wiki postings in the first place). As to why I thought a cross-wiki notice was a good idea, well, I cited Linus's law... (and over the last few years I found cross-wiki notifications useful in the context of deletion discussions, where I have seen a number of articles saved after editors on one wiki's found some sources that were then reported to the other) but why didn't I consider the wider context (the need to notify the Russian Wikipedia to ensure balance, given this is a much more sensitive topic than a non-controversial AfD)? A terrible brain fart on my part. I can only pledge to not repeat this. After all, it's not like I make AN(I)-worthy mistakes often, do I? I will consider myself properly WP:TROUTed. Maybe even whaled. Feel free to template my talk page respectively when this is closed (or even before), I deserve it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Piotrus, I'm sorry for the somewhat staccato nature of my responses as I am rather preoccupied elsewhere (offwiki) at the present moment, but I'm not sure you're appreciating the gravity of this. This is not a WP:TROUT matter. It is a discretionary sanctions one. I already noted this incident in the log (diff), which at the very least ought to serve as a serious admonishment. This is not a violation to be concluded in jest or whimsy, I'm sorry to say (truly). El_C 03:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  El C, El C, I understand, and I consider myself 'seriously admonished'. I am not brushing this off and I can only repeat my apology and promise to be more careful. I did not consider that we were in the DS area (the Axis article was not templated as such until a few hours ago [27] but I understand that such notifications are not always present on all relevant pages, so I am not trying to wikilawyer as an excuse, I should have known and behaved better, and will know and behave better in the future). I hope you'll consider that in the last decade I have had a pretty good track of adhering to the letter and spirit of our project's policies, as indicated by my lack of presence at AN(I), AE and such (as in, I didn't do anything meriting a warning or admonishment in that time, nor was I even a party to an ArbCom hearing). I will try to learn from this incident and try my best to avoid any other errors in judgement, for at least another decade and hopefully much longer. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: Have you ever advertised a pl.wiki RFC on en.wiki? Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, AFAIK pl wiki retired RfC process in 2007... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• No sanction at this point - Piotrus and I have clashed on numerous occasions at AFD but I think his editing history speaks for itself. Another episode of canvasing and I might say differently. The content of the infobox at Axis powers is the subject of endless, pointy, trolling behaviour from numerous parties and frankly the latest poll is just another episode of that. This is a pity because the article itself is in a woeful state, poorly referenced, and way too long, yet all the focus goes on who gets the badge of shame of being in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If he has been warned (at least once) before there is no excuse, none. There should be some kind of consequences for breaking an agreement not to do something. It does not matter if it did not work, he crossed a line.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's quite disappointing to see this behavior from Piotrus. Usually he is one of the more evidence-based and reasonable editors who works in the topic area. (t · c) buidhe 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• The idea that someone should get a slap on the wrist because their attempt at canvassing did not really work is ridiculous. To quote WP:CANVASS "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning." It is the intent behind the action that matters and the fact that a decade after WP:EEML, there are still people trying to rally outside support against "the Russians".--Catlemur (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Astral Leap, this is not helping. Please refrain. Having a newish account, who is a partisan for the other side, be the one to propose sanctions is just a bad idea, plainly so. El_C 01:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

===Propose: Piotrus is restricted to a single account === Due to the deceptive use of User:Hanyangprofessor2 to avoid scrutiny in this canvassing, Piotrus is limited to using a single account.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Support myself.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Comment. As I said above, I apologize for the stupid stunt. I do need such an account for the use at work (where the computers are more likely to be compromised). As some may know, I am very involved in promoting Wikipedia activities in the tertiary education setting (see WMF coverage). It wasn't used much last year due to the temporary switch to online classes. I can certainly promise not to use such an account for ill-thought cross-wiki notifications. It happened once and won't happen again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC) ===Propose: Piotrus is blocked for six months === As the last block of Piotrus for canvassing was for three months and in light of broken promises, Pioturs is blocked for six months, double the last block.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Support myself.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) ===Propose: Piotrus is blocked for six months === As the last topic ban of Pioturs for canvassing was for one year and in light of broken promises, Piotrus is indefinitely topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Support myself.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) ===Propose: Block canvassed editors from Polish Wikipedia, and strike votes=== Following Ymblanter's suggesstion, to prevent disruption from the canvassing: any editor whose majority of edits is to Polish Wikipedia, who did not edit the English Wikipedia from January 1st 2021 through January 29th 2021, and who participates/participated in Talk:Axis powers#RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states shall be deemed as canvassed. Their vote shall be struck, and the account blocked on the English Wikipedia for one month.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Support myself.--Astral Leap (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus sanctioned, Astral Leap blocked

Please note that I have given Piotrus a wide topic ban from the topic area (-ish) for one month, which I consider to be a fairly mild sanction. I have also blocked Astral Leap for one week for, among other things, having violated WP:3RR in this very complaint. Logged AE actions. Please also note that, unless there are strenuous objections, I intend to close this complaint later this evening. El_C 15:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a new issue. You may be interested in this finding of fact from ten years ago. If the same behavior by the same people in the same topic area has been going on for more than ten years then I'm not sure a 1 month sanction will solve anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I have already been introduced to that Arbitration case here yesterday. It has been discussed at some length above by multiple participants. Anyway, here is my sanction notice, in full: You have been sanctioned per this AN report [link] concerning canvassing on the Polish Wikipedia. I realize it did not materialize, but the point is that it could have. I am reasonably confident that you will be cognizant of this in the future, so as to not have this WP:EEML-like incident repeat a decade from now or whenever. Anyway, I think this a relatively mild sanction, but important, for the record. It's possible that the Arbitration Committee may decide to take additional action, but I estimate the likelihood of that as being relatively low. El_C 22:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Attention needed at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Further_discussion_on_potential_bot_disruption

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

---

Some closure is needed regarding the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Further_discussion_on_potential_bot_disruption. Despite huge amounts of aggravation, MonkBot continues to be run with Task 18 on thousands upon thousands of articles, making reference style changes (MOS:STYLERET and WP:COSMETICBOT), based on a bot approval that had maybe 5 participants. I've blocked the bot on over 250 articles now, but it is getting to the point where I'm just going to make a daily post to its talk page. The discussion has had a flag requesting attention for well over a month. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Talking to the botop at the moment, will have something in the next day or two. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In the interim, the bot should be stopped. I have made my first post to do as such.[28] This is in line with a lack of progress made on the steps outlined by WP:BOTISSUE. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not clear to me what lack of progress you are seeing. On 16 January you posted a message to my talk page about an edit that the bot made two days earlier. On 18 January you silently reverted a bunch of bot edits and added a {{bots|deny=MonkBot}} template to those articles.

On 31 January you started this discussion immediately after you made this revert which, it appears, is about style. Monkbot had edited that article on 29 December 2020 and then again on 6 January 2021. Both of those edits were made well before you notified me that you thought that the bot was operating outside of its scope (16 January).

Today (2 February) you reverted three other edits that had all been made well before 16 January. So I got to wondering if you were seeing the bot making edits that you don't like after the 16 January notification date. I trolled through Special:Contributions/Floydian looking for mention of monkbot. This table lists the dates of all of reverts that I found (excepting the 18 January silent reverts) and the dates of the associated monkot edits (each date is linked to the edit's diff):

article	Floydian revert	monkbot edit
Ontario Highway 403	20 January 2021	6 January 2021
Ontario Highway 2	20 January 2021	28 November 2020
	18 January 2021	7 January 2021
Ontario Highway 503	24 January 2021	1 January 2021
	18 January 2021	12 January 2021
Ontario Highway 40	27 January 2021	12 January 2021
Ontario Highway 401	31 January 2021	29 December 2020
	(same? only one revert)	6 January 2021
400-series highways	1 February 2021	19 December 2020
Ontario Highway 3	2 February 2021	6 January 2021
	18 January 2021	7 January 2021
Ontario Highway 6	2 February 2021	17 December 2020
	18 January 2021	6 January 2021
Ontario Highway 11	2 February 2021	18 December 2020

Did I miss any? I think that monkbot will only remove all blank lines from a vertical template when removal of a parameter leaves a blank line. Do you have an example of monkbot deleting whitespace in vertical templates where it did not also delete a parameter that left a blank line?

Because your accusation that the bot is making stylistic changes seems to be based on old data, I am going to restart it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Erreurs sur diverse pages évoquant Mathurin Henrio.

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

---

Bonjour Sur plusieurs pages Wiki, j'ai noté la même erreur. Il s'agit de Mathurin Henrio tué par les Allemands le 10 février 1944. Il n'a pas de pseudo Barioz. C'est une confusion avec un jeune de 16 ans tué le 14 juillet 1944 dans les Glières. Cette mention qui existait sur le site de l'Ordre de la Libération a été rectifié. Je tiens à votre disposition des éléments pour appuyer ceci. J'ai écrit un livre de 200 pages, paru en 2005 retraçant l'histoire de Baud et de Poulmein (nom du lieu et du maquis où Mathurin Henrio a été tué). Cordialement Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB08:8861:8400:3029:AD04:F5DC:E6CE (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, you should discuss this at Talk:Mathurin Henrio. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Compromised account?

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

---

I don't know enough about the matter to be sure, and I might be wrong, but the latest edits from User:Hyacinth look suspicious to me (suddenly copying whole talk page comments into edit summaries? Also edits which are full with spelling mistakes beyond recognition?). Please do tell me if I'm wrong, rather be safe than sorry. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look out of character to me. A quick look at their contributions show they regularly copy and paste what they've written into the edit summary field.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm still waiting for the edit count utility to confirm, but these latest edits also seem to be outside of their regular editing hours. Update: this is definitively a usually quiet period coming from this editor (although there are hundreds of edits there from over the years so I don't know, can't be sure). Their latest edits, however, many on the same page with the same summary, are suspect, though as I said I might be wrong. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, if there was somebody we could just ask. Hyacinth (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for asking and assuming good faith but if your account has/is in such a situation you wouldn't obviously be trustworthy. I rather have overreacted here than the opposite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

White hot mess

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

---

Can someone please straighten this out?

• We've got an article White pride with a talk page Talk:White pride
• And we've got an article White supremacy, with its talk page Talk:White supremacy
• Then we have a page White power (small "p"), which redirects to White supremacy...
• ...but it has a stand alone talk page Talk:White power, even though it's a redirect
• Finally, the page White Power (with a capital "P") redirects to White pride (not White supremacy, as White power does)
• ...and it, too, has a separate talk page Talk:White Power.

I would think that both White Power and White power should redirect to the same page, probably White pride, that both Talk:White Power and Talk:White power should be history merged into the talk page of whatever article their pages redirect to (I suggest Talk:White pride), and that White pride should have a prominent pointer to White supremacy, and vice versa. (If someone wants to suggest a merge of White pride and White supremacy, that's fine, although I think the subjects are different enough to have two separate articles.)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a look and it doesn't seem that bad. Talk:White power mostly discusses where White Power should redirect to, which is appropriate. The conclusion there was to redirect to White supremacy, which is a reasonable choice. If someone want to reopen the question, that talk page would seem the place to do so. White Power should redirect to the same target as lower-case power, an easy fix. Talk:White Power only has a WikiProjectBannerShell|1 template "This redirect is of interest to...", again harmless. Maybe the same template should be copied to the lower case talk page. None of this seems to warrant more than some normal tidying up edits, unless I am missing something here.--agr (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, it just seemed so ... messy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've made both of the "power" articles redirect to the same article (White supremacy, because it's the only redirect that was the result of a consensus discussion), redirected the "power" talk page with no content except a list of WikiProject to that article's talk page, and tagged the White supremacy, White pride and White nationalism articles with "see also" templates pointing to each other. I think that clears up the problem. ArnoldReinhold, thanks for talking me down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you're welcome and thanks for doing the cleanup.--agr (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor edits user pages

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

---

ShewanKara has been told by at least two editors (@Vif12vf: and I)[29][30] to not use random unreliable references when removing well-referenced information as has been the case on various pages. They were even blocked from editing Vif12vf's talkpage for disruption and went on to edit my user page.[31] --Semsûrî (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Immediate protection

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

---

Please protect Ali Ansarian article. The person has just passed away.--BallXmado (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Are articles of people who have died regularly protected? If so, why? This seems odd as how will editors add reliably sourced info about the person's life and death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:487F:C68E:D07D:AEDC:8528:39FD (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Regularly enough, but not automatically. By need only. El_C 13:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Review of revision deletion requested

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

---

As I guess is probably known here, I'm the newest administrator here (and I think the newest account with the admin bit). So I'm not near as experienced as most here. I recently performed revision deletions on Luke Combs here and here per the BLP arm of WP:RD2. Since this is my first time applying revision deletion, I would like to make sure that I'm applying policy right before using revdel again in the future. Hog Farm _Talk 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome and congratulations. It looks perfectly good to me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hurray for admin surplus, for once, instead of admin deficit! Anyway, my advise would be to generally err on the side of deletion — it can always be easily undone. El_C 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Pile on support for these revdels. Good judgement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Found Possible Sockpuppet

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

---

Hi, can an admin do a check on this user - S. Iswaran - ASAP? Conducted a check of their edits, and believe them to be a sockpuppet of User:Agt2008fan. GUtt01 (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Think I found another sockpuppet - although they're blocked, could a check be done on Foo Mee Har, as well? GUtt01 (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The correct place to ask for sockpuppet investigations is WP:SPI. -JBL (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Submissions to a Sandbox

"Perchance my friend, you'll feed this thing?" "Nay say I, for such things are like bears, once fed: not fit to be around man!" AdmiralEek (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a pet and my submissions are not pet waste! I 've just joined, found the prospect of making a submission to a sandbox insulting and when I said so, was told to stop behaving like a child - two insults in a short space of time. I'm genuinely shocked!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.28.248.12 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC) It's difficult to help you without knowing who you are(there are no other edits from your IP). 331dot (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Note that the things people sometimes use for their pets to lay their waste in are more commonly called Litter box or similar, especially since a lot of modern ones use something very far from what generally be called sand. Most owners of Sandboxes would much rather pets don't use them for waste. Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC) For the straight answer: sandboxes are useful, IP, because you can draft articles in them, tinker with formatting until there's no ref errors or whatever, and you're not in a fishbowl to be judged and speedied in the middle of it. I use them myself and recommend them. -- a lad insane (channel two) 21:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC) WP:DNFTT Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Oopsies, sorry, need to work on my trolldar apparently -- a lad insane (channel two) 05:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Script for dealing with the current wave of BLP violations

ANI reports: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#TikTok raid discussion

As the list of BLP violations at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=1112 is continuously being updated, with many vandalism-only accounts being created to introduce unverifiable material about living persons into articles, there seems to be a need for an unusually drastic countermeasure. In many cases, not reacting to the "disallow" entries with a block leads to filter evasion a few minutes later.

The script User:ToBeFree/antivandalism-temp.js, based on User:Enterprisey/quick-vand-block, adds a "block-BLPvio" link to logs, indefinitely blocking registered users and temporarily blocking unregistered users after a short confirmation dialogue.

To adjust the temporary block duration (I currently use two weeks, which may be a bit much in some cases but seems appropriate for single IPv6s) or the block message, simply create a copy in your own userspace.

The script will be removed or deleted as soon as the wave becomes manageable by other means. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this is a current wave, rather than what we normally get? Blocking by bot is an extraordinary method that needs an extraordinary situation to allow. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a TikTok user told people to add their names to their hometowns and other locations, and an edit filter was needed to track it. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, Ah so thats whats causing it. I was wondering already why I was getting so many of those in Huggle Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is blocking by bot; I'm just reducing the amount of Twinkle clicks for my manual blocks. I would just have changed Twinkle's default settings to match the situation, but Twinkle has no options for default blocking reason and duration.

My description was unclear in this regard. There is no bot-blocking; the script just adds a block button next to the user's "talk" link. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not saying I disagree with the blocks, but can someone explain the rationale to me? Are we blocking everyone who trips the filter or are we looking for a specific pattern? It seems the filter is set to disallow so what does blocking get us? @ToBeFree and Primefac: — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, in many cases, not reacting to the "disallow" entries with a block leads to filter evasion a few minutes later. Users have a look at the filter and evade it, for example using fake references including empty reference tags along with the exact same edit, unnoticed by the filter. Example diffs: Special:Diff/1003280777, Special:Diff/1003280021. Additional example IP: 41.35.94.48. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Current IP example added; this happens when I type here for a few minutes instead of having a look at the filter list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally have not been blocking except for those who are putting inappropriate things along with the name (e.g. "Joe Bloggs, pussy-whipped loser") as most of the accounts are throwaways and I doubt that blocking the frivolous vandals will really amount to much. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both, I'll chip away as I find time. My approach so far has been to give short term blocks for tripping the filter multiple times (or successfully avoiding it). SoY's script below would probably help with that work flow too so I'll check that out. If nothing else it helps keep the signal-noise ratio down so we can easily notice and quickly respond to the really bad cases like Primefac notes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Before the filter was set to disallow, you'd see many of the accounts coming back to re-add the vandalism 2-3 times (rarely, even more) after it was reverted. Blocking on sight as an off-wiki-campaigned VOA helped a lot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Another script

@ToBeFree: Threw this together in a hurry, so probably has stupid bugs, but see User:Suffusion of Yellow/abusecontribs.js. Highlights AbuseLog entries where the same user also has successfully saved at least one edit (anywhere) in the past day. Cyan == none. Green == all tagged "reverted". Red == at least one not tagged "reverted". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice tool, thank you very much -- I just tried it, but nothing seemed to happen. I'll have another look later. Anyway, those without any edits are displayed with a red contributions link, which is already helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Did you click "Live edits" in your tools? :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aah :) That works, Suffusion of Yellow. Thanks. The contrast, especially when viewing it with reduced blue light, is a bit too low for me (blue on green/red) and I figured the additional information isn't that useful/new to me, so I'll keep it disabled for now. But thanks for sharing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Ok, you can override the CSS from your common.css (read the source to find the class names). How were you to able to see if unregistered users had contribs? They all show up as blue to me. Only registered users' contribs links are red. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, ah, okay, that would actually be an option. I'll think about creating a small indication; perhaps I'll try to replace the bullet icons by emoji. Regarding IP edits, yeah, the trick sadly only works for accounts, so I click the IP addresses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing how many of those notable people have either fat asses or huge cocks. Strange. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Tag to the next admin: you're it. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Gamers" and "legends" also seem to be unusually well represented. I'm surprised no one has had the meta-humor yet to describe themselves as "Wikipedia vandal". Antandrus (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Antandrus, I have actually seen at least one of those I think somwhere Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Being any of these does not give you automatic notability

• da plug
• local white boy
• textile artist
• most famous phat ass
• local menace
• PHATTTT ass no cap
• award winning weeb
• the people’s champ
• Da Boii who do Books now
• Big Juicy Azz
• hottest person 2021
• pug
• Saint/Animal Rights Activist/Best Cleaning Lady in the world
• sexy student
• famous Gibraltarian Tiktok influencer
• worst gamer ever!
• little fuckhead
• biggest bunda
• ailurophile
• phattest ass
• swaggy as fuck
• hokage
• Local pimp
• fart master Drmies (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: my daughter just confessed most of these were hers, esp. the "swaggy as fuck" one. Where did I go wrong, and how did she grab all those IPs?? Floquenbeam, I need an intervention. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Drmies, sadly life doesn't really have WP:AN/CR (Administrator's Noticeboard/Child-Rearing) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Drmies, Hey, hey, Textile Artist!! I used to resemble that remark! (Actually earned an income, and taught classes that people enjoyed. Ah, those were the days. :-) Now, I am relegated to a list of descriptors I don't understand. :-( Guess I will edit WP. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
      • User:Gwennie-nyan, User:Tribe of Tiger, "phat ass" and variations of "have huge schlong" are still the winners, I'm afraid. But in my book you're ALL winners, the GOAT, etc. Textile artist doesn't sound like the worst job in the world... I love watching people weave or make lace... Drmies (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Need eyes on Talk:The Lincoln Project

There's been some WP:BLP problems at Talk:The Lincoln Project. I'd appreciate it if some more admins could add it to their watchlist to catch problems quickly. The article itself is semi-protected, but I'm hesitant to protect the talk page because that's kind of not cool. If somebody else wants to do that, it's fine with me, but I'm hoping more eyes on it will be sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Review of ANI closure by user:El_C

The closure of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#User:Armatura is a sad indident involving two long time, dedicated contributors to Wikipedia. I had hoped it was some misunderstanding that would quickly be solved with a few reasonable words at the user's talk page. Instead, the discussion grew lengthy and ended on the lowest level of our version of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Thus, I am sorry that I have to bother the community with what I now only can summarize as follows:

El_C closed a discussion against consensus with the rationale that it was “lengthy” and no indication that they followed the directions of WP:CLOSE.

WP:CLOSE stipulates that "The closer is ... expected ... to judge the result of the debate. [...] To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented.". However, the replies at User_talk:El_C#User:Armatura_report_closure, so far as they are given, are so superficial that they don't show any indication that El_C even read the case. It appears (e.g. from their question at 20:39), that El_C didn't even read the short sections Admin_notice and General comments, the latter showing that there was clear consensus for the way the case was handled and for the recommended consequences. By closing the case with no action, El_C acted against clear consensus, based on personal opinion only. ◅ Sebastian 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose overturning the close because technically, it was correct in that the case was opened on the 13th of January and closed 2 weeks later on the 28th with only 1 comment. I agree with most of Sebastians reasoning and applaud his goals but I El C did the right thing by closing it the way he did. I do hope that Sebastian can condense his case and resubmit it at AE. I'm sure there are editors who are familiar with crafting such cases for presentation who will be happy to help. Atsme 💬 📧 13:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• The post which opened the thread is 3,400 words long. That's wildly excessive and it's not reasonable to expect anybody to read it. Indeed it looks like almost nobody did, as there's hardly any discussion there, so there's no action which can be taken on the basis of it. The actions suggested (e.g. imposing topic bans, and forbidding people from using the word "jeez") would require some sort of active consensus. Posting walls of text and then insisting that people have to read them before they take any action relating to the thread is disruptive. Hut 8.5 13:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• It was well formatted, but very lengthy with minimal participation. I think when asking for volunteer time one has to be reasonable as to length of text and amount of time requested. Try AE as the close suggested? Its style is more suitable to getting conclusive outcomes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (etc.)

While I meant no offense to SebastianHelm, if an inexperienced admin engages in action which I feel reflects said inexperience, I think I am entitled to (eventually) highlight that, notwithstanding Graham's hierarchy of disagreement or whatever. For example, this was an WP:ACDS matter. SebastianHelm could have taken singular AE action at any time, instead, they chose to post a 24-point "finding" and a 9-point "recommended consequences," which lingered for a week (because of course it did), until I closed the entire report. To quote myself (a favourite pastime of mine): The timesink that these AE-centred AN and ANI mega-threads (another example from earlier in the month) constitute is something I intend to curtail with great vigor. Not really interested to just let those reports bloat with insiders going on and on while outsiders are effectively shutout, until the thread gets archived with no action, anyway. El_C 15:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, regarding the could have taken action part, Sebastian said they considered themselves involved. I am now recusing myself from this case, because (as I learned (from Dreamy Jazz) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Moving towards closure) once I expressed my opinion, I may be regarded as involved. Therefore I'm asking other admins to take over the responsibility for closing this case correctly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, on my talk page, they said: I'm taking exception to the patronizing way you are talking about “any uninvolved admin investigating”. Are you not aware that you're talking to just such a person. So, a bit of an inconsistency there. El_C 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Updating content to Wikipedia page

Hello:

Please advise as to how we can get this page updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altium

The content is very outdated and doesn't really focus on our company so much as company politics. The logo is also outdated, as well as the list of products, which currently includes multiple products Altium doesn't support anymore.

We have new content we can submit, but since we're Altium, we may not be able to suggest alternate content because we're considered to be a biased source, so please advise as to what we can do.

Thank you, Alexandra Kogan Senior Copywriter Altium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.162.242 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Howdy hello. For starters, you should read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you still have questions, please ask at the Teahouse. AdmiralEek (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD backlogged again

There's a backlog of AfDs again, some have been around for two weeks without a close. Quite a few seem to be cricket related. If you're not an admin but fancy helping out, and have seen this and don't mind getting 25 random questions, drop one of these people a line. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Becoming a mentor

Hello, how do I become a mentor to "adopt" other users? 54nd60x (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:AAU. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't. Not yet. You're still too new for that. Just having to ask that shows you lack the experience to be a mentor at this time. El_C 14:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

[[32]] - just the first 12 seconds... Springee (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems they went through with it anyway. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha! You know the key to my heart, Springee! El_C 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Worst baseball team name ever

Perhaps some of you will find this amusing. If we can only convince the as-yet-unnamed Danville Appalachian League team to call themselves the Administrators, future headlines could read "Administrators Wallop Sock Puppets," "Sock Puppets Sneak Past Administrators," and the like. Deor (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's cool. -nominates for deletion- --WaltCip-(talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit History Strikeout

Hi. Is there anychance an admin can go through the edit history for articles covering the 1st to 6th season of America's Got Talent, from around 23-24 January of this year, and possibly strikeout the edits that were made by sockpuppets from Singapore to these articles, after resuming their disruption once again with these? GUtt01 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a lot of content, and skimming through Season 1 I don't necessarily see anything that would require revdel. To save everyone some time digging, could you please give more specifics, in the form of diffs and/or dates+time? Primefac (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it might be easier to ask for any edits done by the sockpuppets of the user Agt2008fan, listed in this Sockpuppet Investigation Archive, to be struck out, if possible. Reason would be to ensure no editor is misled to thinking that their edits were to establish "correct" information, rather than false, misleading information. GUtt01 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me clarify - unless it meets one of the RD criteria (likely WP:RD2 or WP:RD3, from your concern) then it won't be hidden (hence why I asked for specific diffs). Wikipedia is hit with false and/or variants-of-incorrect information every second, and we don't hide them just because we want to appear perfect. Vandalism happened, we reverted, next page. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Butch Cassidy

2603:8080:B205:EA12:5972:DDF:4EE3:4BC6 was reverted. Need block IP address and reverting Butch Cassidy. RoseCloud26 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• RoseCloud26, are you using Twinkle/rollback? If so, that should be yanked from you, and I am going to place a warning on your talk page for disruptive editing (an unexplained revert of a positive edit) and a lack of WP:AGF (collegiality), in reporting this immediately without even discussing the matter with the editor. To the IP from Texas: thank you for your copy edits; they improved the article. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello, RoseCloud26. I have to agree with Drmies here. The IP editor improved the article and you made it worse. Then, I took a look at your user page which now reads "Hello! I'm user but not forget it! Be safely and stay healthy home." That is word salad that makes absolutely no sense, except in the script of a Borat movie. Perhaps you should contribute instead in your native language's version of Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Cullen328, Although I do have to point out that That is word salad that makes absolutely no sense doesn't work either; it should be That is a word salad that makes absolutely no sense or That word salad makes absolutely no sense ;) Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
      • No, I think that "word salad" can be used in an uncountable way. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Cullen328, they did it again. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Aha. I cite from the SPI, "the same (bad) attempts at antivandalism". Yes, these were bad. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Notable residents

Has anyone else noticed a recent upsurge in the addition of spurious "Notable residents" listed at UK town and cites, all added by anon IP editors? I have reverted many more than usual over the past two weeks. There seems to be some kind of organised IP vandalism campaign underway. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

See #Script_for_dealing_with_the_current_wave_of_BLP_violations above. Primefac (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Assuming it’s what I think it is it originated from a TikTok Video.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks. Can't wait for the results night. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin recruitment drive

I became an admin as a result of a recruitment drive. I think that another drive could result in more admins joining the ranks and reducing the workload a little. There are plenty of active editors in good standing out there, some of them might want to take on the mop too. I'm not looking for editors to suggest themselves, but more interested in editors being approached that fellow admins think will be suitable candidates. RfA can be a bit daunting, so probably better to get editors to run that have a better chance of passing. Thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't done a nomination in a while, my last was @Dreamy Jazz: which went well enough. If someone needs a nomination to be willing to take the plunge, I'll happily do so and encourage others to do the same. Also have a couple users I'd like to run, may try to talk them into it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm this, and can also confirm that he was very helpful as a nominator. If you are thinking of going for RfA, you can always privately ask an administrator for a rating. Also, if you don't try then you won't know if you would pass. It is stressful, but if you have need for the tools, then go for it. An experienced trusted editor with need should be granted the tools. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've asked a couple recently. One has declined, the other is thinking about the offer. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Are there any suitable candidates at WP:AHF? Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Better known as as "list of people who shouldn't get a mop" ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots so I actually wanted to prove the conventional wisdom expressed there by our subjective friend wrong. In November/December of 2020, I went through, did an initial cull of people (e.g. eliminating people who only have a handful of edits in the last year but enough to be considered "active"). I then reached out to to the rest asking if they were still interested in RfA. A few weren't, many were. In the end I didn't find anyone who was ready now, in my judgement. I passed along my thoughts to them all, including what I saw as a viable pathway towards being a good RfA candidate, and encouraged them to reach back out to me in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 runs flights. I'm hoping to have two candidates sometime between April and July, myself. —valereee (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So I have pretty mixed feeling about the formal flight we did. I think all of the candidates who passed would have passed regardless of the flight. I think we had one editor, Steel1943 who would not have run if not for the flight, who decided to withdraw after starting the RfA (I think they'd have ultimately passed), and who after years of regular editing went cold turkey and hasn't been seen since. The benefit I did see is that candidates got less questions. The potential value of the flight is that we get a candidate who wouldn't run (like the most recent person I approached who would have passed with flying colors but who doesn't want to) to run and pass. Having the opposite happen is pretty upsetting for me and less questions to the candidates is definitely good but not enough of a benefit to outweigh that. That said if people think it would be worth trying again we could. But I just wanted to speak honestly about my thinking of the last one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard backlogged

WP:EWN seems fairly undermanned. Of the 20 reports there, only 5 have been answered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This really should be addressed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The backlog has been mostly addressed, but I filed a report that's been awaiting resolution for 18 hours, during which the edit war has continued and spilled over into projectspace. I filed it right after I woke up, and now I'm about to go to sleep. If anyone's got a second, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on abhira page by Hindukshatrana and bloodofruler (Result: Stale)

This happened a 2 months ago on abhira page when a user named bloodofruler added some info which I Hindukshatrana didn't like and started reverting it constantly

Cases of him reverting blood of ruler one of after another [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

This is obviously not allowed and he and bloodofruler have already broken 4reverts rule please do something about this bloodofruler is blocked but Hindukshatrana is still freely editing. Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like someone doesn't fully understand the three revert rule XD. Though I would like to hear Chariotrider555, Anthony gomes 92, RegentsPark and Materialscientist's opinions on what this guy is doing on the same Abhira tribe page. And BTW, this dude's blocked on Hindi Wikipedia for caste promotions and for being a caste warrior, as we can see it over here. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

H A Rose (1911) is a Raj Era source and we don't use Raj Era sources for caste related information on Wikipedia. Please see Sitush caste lists for more information. HinduKshatrana is totally right in reverting it. Anthony gomes 92(talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:HinduKshatrana is completely right in reverting those edits. User:Bloodofruler was a caste-promoter who was bringing disruptive edits to Wikipedia and refusing to adhere to its policies. I fully support User:HinduKshatrana for holding Wikipedia pages to a high standard, and not letting disruptive caste-promoters user Wikipedia as a platform to glorify their castes contrary to their known history. User:Pseudo Nihilist, I would be very careful if I were you; caste promotion is not something taken lightly here at the English Wikipedia as well. Be sure to familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:HISTRS, [38], and [39]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Note - Pseudo Nihilist is also indef'd from Wikidata for edit-warring and disruptive edits - [40]. Their editing here shows a pattern of caste-pushing, with some use of poor quality sources. I'm somewhat surprised they pulled in a Raj-era source, as they've gotten better over time about using better sources. That said, Pseudo Nihilist doesn't always handle disputes well - their edit summary here is not acceptable and I warned them about it (warning removed without comment). A few weeks ago, they posted on ANI [41] asking an editor they were conflicting with on the Hindi Wikipedia be blocked - the same editor they were edit-warring with on Wikidata. Caste related articles here drive way too much drama, all editors here need to be aware of the tone of their posts and work towards lowering the drama, not ramping it up. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You clearly have broken the 3 revert rule along with bloodofruler guy but he is blocked for it I've counted it myself you both reverted each other for 5+times 2 months ago the entire edit history is full of you both playing revert game and User:HinduKshatrana user:Chariotrider555 if Raj era sources aren't allowed remove it but you were also removing my well referenced edits on rule at junagadh section as well removing mediaeval and epical information about abhiras which I have referenced from rima hooja 's book please don't do that it's disruptive. and about me being blocked from Hindi wiki it's a clear misunderstanding between and admin and the user who wrong fully thought that I was edit warring but in reality I never edit those said articles on Hindi wiki See my appeal for more info thank you Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Chariotrider555 yes he was right colonial sources aren't allowed but edit warring and reverting eachother 7+times isn't it against 3 revert rule? User:bloodofruler was blocked for all the disruption he caused and I believe it was justified but why isn't Hindukshatrana blocked? He has contributed to the edit war with him He could have reported him but instead he was edit warring with him constantly. Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Stale An edit war from two months ago is far too old to attract sanctions, warnings, or anything else. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC Chopin

I place this here at the suggestion of User:Robert McClenon, who helped create the RfC on the Chopin talk page, and made the suggestion at the discussion of the RfC at the Requests for Closure page. The request for closure resulted in some spilling over of the orginal RfC, as can be seen. The background is that Frédéric Chopin is a WP FA, with over 1m. views in the past year. In December 2020 it became subject to substantial editing and 'unediting' following a Swiss radio broadcast which asserted that Chopin was homosexual. The very extensive exchange of editors' views can be read on Talk:Frédéric Chopin. There is an RfC in which many editors offered views and expressed their preference from a range of six alternative approaches. The extensive debate originally engendered appears to have subsided in volume. A closing administrator can of course judge for themselves on any consensus of opinion. A resolution of this RfC would enable this high-profile FA to resolve its content appropriately.--Smerus (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Massive One Direction related vandalism

Lots of One Direction related vandalism going on, so extra help is needed. Example. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/1118 - still needs work, but helps. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems to have died down a fair bit. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sullivan9211 and FBS college football national championships

Sullivan9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is engaged in longterm disruptive editing; WP:TBAN is requested.

College football primer if/as helpful:

The NCAA does not award championships in college football at the Division I - FBS (the highest) level of competition.[42] "Selectors" award national championships to their chosen team (or multiple teams if their selection is split as a co-national championship).[43] The NCAA created a designation of "major selector"[44] for 30+ entities and the NCAA reports on (only) their selections in its annual FBS Record Book.pg. 112, 114-119 These facts mean that in any year, multiple teams can earn "national champion" recognition from these major selectors when there is disagreement on the "national champion."[45]

Sullivan9211 is engaged in longterm DE in this topic space, regularly removing content and citations contrary to the above.

Today on the Missouri Tigers football article, Sullivan9211 removed Missouri's 2007 national championship which was awarded by Anderson & Hester and the 3 supporting citations.[46] Anderson & Hester is designated by the NCAA as a major selector.[47]

Similarly, on the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article, with an edit made within the "#Total championship selections from major selectors by school:" section, Sullivan removed Missouri's 2007 championship awarded by Anderson & Hester and three supporting citations.[48]

Sullivan9211 has engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry in this topic space. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sullivan9211/Archive and "This is patently transparent. What do you have to say?" And ignored admin User:Bbb23 ("Please confirm that GeauxCajuns1981 is your account. If it is, why did you create it and why do you need it going forward?").

My prior 2018 ANI topic space report[49] with extensive diffs on DE and NOR has not resulted in a change in behavior, while Sullivan9211 offered an ambiguous response.[50]

Wikipedia:Competence is required. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sullivan9211 chose to ignore the ANI notice[51] on their Talk, but did reply on my Talk[52] which served to affirm they did not sufficiently review or understand the existing and new citations in the most recent incident. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncontroversial page move

Can an admin please G6 Luke Combs discography so I can move Luke Combs Discography to that title? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: You can use WP:RM, I believe. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's an uncontroversial housekeeping move, so I'm asking it to be done per G6. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncontroversial requests are handled at WP:RM#TR too. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The page was already nominated with {{db-move}}, there's no need to be that bureaucratic to force them to another board. That being said, it was nominated with {{db-move}}, so I'm not really sure the urgency that requires an AN post.

That being said, I've moved the page. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

National Archives & Records Administration range block

I've been contacted off-wiki by an Archivist, who wishes to remain anonymous, working for the National Archives & Records Administration about an IP range block imposed by @Future Perfect at Sunrise: of User talk:2601:152:4001:4460:3869:F967:294C:2B4B block log. Apparently, this IP range is one used by the NARA and the person making the comment appears to have been a researcher using one of the National Archives VPN networks to connected to their Citizen Archivist project, and connected to a single server used by a military history discussion group. To make things more complex the block is as a sock of User:OberRanks who has been permanently banned for using questionable sources, particularly those by controversial historian Mark C. Yerger. Now OberRanks is known to my correspondent and had a long history working with NARA as a paid reference researcher, from the conversation its likely that OR and the IP are different people both using the NARA system. I did mention Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests so we may get a request about the IP range there. --Salix alba (talk): 14:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The person who contacted you is almost certainly OberRanks too. Don't believe a word they say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

He has certainly had run ins with you in the past, as had the late Mark Yerger. Rather than a single sock I think there is a whole bunch of them, all connected to the same military history discussion group. It is concerning that this is connected to an official government archive project.

I'm not advocating for the block to be lifted. --Salix alba (talk): 14:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with Mark Yerger ... Huh, really? Anyway ... I don't believe for a moment these shenanigans are actually connected to that archive project. The IP range is a residential address owned by Comcast, not a .gov address. Everything he's been telling you is just the usual nonsense smokescreen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The email I have received comes from a working nara.gov email address and check out on the NARA Organization - Employee Locator.

Yes at some point in the past you probably had the pleasure of blocking Mr Yagger. --Salix alba (talk): 15:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious what makes you think Yerger ever edited Wikipedia, and if he did, why I would have encountered him. Anyway, as for the NARA address, OberRanks always claimed he worked there, so he may well still do so. But the NARA IP he used to sock with, from it's official .gov range, was 207.245.177.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), not the private IPv6 range I blocked yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The circle I get for the IP address [53] actually includes College Park where the National Archive is located.

I've received two different sets of email from the same person, once a quite official one asking about unblocking the IP. The other was from his personal email and was or candid talking about his and other's experiences with Wikipedia. Mark Yerger and OberRanks are both mentioned. Apparently one of your pages caused quite a high-level internal investigation at NARA. --Salix alba (talk): 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:152:4001:4460:0:0:0:0/64 shows their third edit (September 2020) added this image and five others, all of which were originally uploaded by OberRanks in 2015. Later, the IP amazingly found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS-Oberabschnitt Süd. The IP is obviously an LTA. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have added that SS-Oberabschnitt Süd was created by the indeffed OberRanks (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Putin's Palace

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

---

Could an uninvolved editor or administrator please close Talk:Putin's_Palace#Requested_move_30_January_2021 as snow close. TFD (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, has it been 7 days already? Will do. El_C 17:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Huge CSD backlog

Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion is severely backlogged right now. I tagged Colder Places for A9 speedy deletion on February 1 and it still hasn't been deleted. There should be literally no reason that a speedy deletion should take almost as long to clear out as a prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons: there are no admins working those areas recently, it's a grey area, no one noticed the tag, cache issues... so yes, there are reasons. The hyperbole is a little unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't the first time TPH has got impatient about deletion backlogs. Meanwhile, I (and I'm certain Barkeep) would like anyone who knows the CSD criteria inside out to pop over Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes please. Feel free to get in touch privately for an assessment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I added my name to that list but still nothing has happened! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I tend to let the AfD play out in those cases. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a pity TPH has such a poor block log. Might have made admin otherwise and been able to pitch in. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

All the pages I've tagged recently (mainly U5/G11) have been dealt with within a few hours. The backlog in other categories appears to be down. Pahunkat (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been picking at CSD a bit today. We're down to ~40-50ish items in the category. SQL^{Query me!} 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Block appeal of Astral Leap

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

---

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

Per their request, I am transferring the AE block appeal of Astral Leap to this page. I make no endorsement in doing so, and have no opinion about this matter. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I was blocked in error, I reverted three times and not four as El_C wrongly says.

Regardless of El_C's error, I must state I was wrong to restore my comments even in the face of Volunteer Marek's personal attacks and removals that violate WP:TALKO. I was flabbergasted by the repeated removals, and acted in haste. Instead of reverting Volunteer Marek's removal, I should've reported him to WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. However, El_C's recommendation that I avoid reporting content opponents at boards, and my exasperation at the situation where I was accused of being WP:EEML by Volunteer Marek while he simultaneously removed posts pointing at his EEML sanction resulted in rash decisions on my part.

El_C says, in his block rationale that I reverted four times. However, I reverted three. This is a complete timeline of this:

1. 02:37 I posted a new comment expressing surprise at how many EEML editors showed up after EEML was mentioned in the thread which was about canvassing on the Polish Wikipedia by an EEML editor. My post was on-topic, and contained information from the case and links existing on Wikipedia.
2. [54] 1st undo by Volunteer Marek, breaking WP:TALKO and removing content that is entirely on Wikipedia.
3. 03:29 1st undo by me.
4. 03:32 User:Levivich makes an unrelated comment, my undo from 03:29 stands.
5. 03:33 After fixing an edit-conflict with Levivich, I respond to a personal attack (from 02:46) by Volunteer Marek. When I make this response my post from 02:37 (undo from 03:29) is on the page, and I merely added a partial copy of what was on the page, responding to a second personal attack by Volunteer Marek. This is not a revert. El_C wrongly claims on my talk page this is a revert.
6. [55],[56] 2nd undo by Volunteer Marek.
7. [57],[58] 2nd undo by me
8. [59] 3rd undo by Volunteer Marek
9. [60] 3rd undo by me, in this revert I also fixed my comment, by removing his old user name, to Volunteer Marek's liking even though this was not required, in an attempt to de-escalate.

This is three reverts, not four. I was the subject of serious personal attacks. The issue under dispute, Volunteer Marek's old username, was resolved in my last edit, so the dispute was resolved when El_C made his block. I realize any edit warring is wrong, but blocking me for a week is excessive and is not preventative.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, Astral Leap's math doesn't immediately adds up for me. But even, say, I miscalculated: as noted on their talk page (here), I believe this WP:ACDS, WP:ARBEE-derived block is well within my discretion to impose. This newish account has been acting in a manner that is both suspect and disruptive, so I stand by my (logged AE) action. El_C 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

VM's rationale for removing the entry the first time was "undo an attempt to intimidate via doxxing". Now whether you agree that the edit was doxxing or not, there's obviously an issue here and the correct thing to do at this point is stop and discuss. Just because "it's on Wikipedia" doesn't mean it's carte blanche for "it's OK for me to keep doing this". But no, first we have doubling down on it (I would actually have blocked at this point) and then linking to it instead, like that's a better idea. Now in mitigation AL does say that they realise they were wrong to restore the comments, though I must say that their alternative suggestion of reporting VM to ANI or AE may not exactly have gone as they intended. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with Astral Leap that I don't see a brightline 3RR violation, there were only 3 edits that can reasonably be counted as reverts. But El C is correct that it's within their discretion to block without a bright line violation, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area. Astral Leap can still appeal, but Idon't see any reason to grant it.

Notably, I agree with Black Kite that regardless or what was posted where and even if it may not be technically outing and whatever the TPG say, if someone clearly wants you to stop posting their real name then you stop and reverse your existing post. You definitely don't fight to keep it in.

I actually don't find this quite so bad although it was still not a great solution. I have not looked very well at the thread, but if someone was sanctioned on en.wikipedia for similar behaviour to that currently under discussion before, it's generally reasonable to mention it. If that sanction was under a previous username which means the username will be seen by anyone checking out the link, that's unfortunate but can't be helped.

Where Astral Leap went wrong with their solution was that there was zero reason to link to the username itself. Link to the arbcom case (or whatever) and say it was under a previous user name is all that's needed. I guess Astral Link could have linked to the case without linking to the specific sections, but IMO that's starting to get to the point where we're splitting hairs and in addition making it hard for others to actually check the details of the case. That said, if Volunteer Marek cares that much, I wouldn't be opposed to some solution e.g. convincing arbcom to modify the page to create an anchor which won't require the older username, or creating a redirect.

Which gets into my final point, since Astral Leap had already had problems I do agree with Black Kite that the best option would have been to talk about it rather than trying to just fix it themselves. Maybe Volunteer Marek could have handled this better too but it should have been clear to Astral Leap that Volunteer Marek wasn't happy about the mention of their real name regardless.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking into this more, I'm not sure if there was that much to be gained by looking specifically into the details of Volunteer Marek's previous sanction so linking to the case without linking to the specific section that dealt with Volunteer Marek seems more reasonable than I initially thought. Of course this does illustrate that the best solution for Volunteer Marek to take was probably to simply redact the links to their previous username including the links to the case, and post a followup with something like "I have redacted the links to my previous username as I prefer it's no longer mentioned, editors can look at my edit history if you really need to know it. I will confirm that I was one of the editors sanctioned in the WP:EEML case." Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In answer to Astral Leap, the way to know was to ask. As has already been said, once someone says 'doxing' you ask what's the concern if you don't understand. You don't effectively say "DGAF" by edit warring to keep the comment which causes concern. I assume you figured it out at some stage since you tried to adjust your comment albeit failing badly. Note that AFAICT, the concern of most editors is not that you posted the name once, but you kept reverting to keep it in even after there was concern. Frankly, while the fact it's a real name greatly increases the problems with your actions, you should be working with editors in most cases if they are unhappy with their previous user name being mentioned. I.E. even if you didn't understand and ignoring the fact you should have asked, there's still no excuse. For example, if someone used the name "The great overlord of the universe, a perfect editor" when they were 12 years old and now goes by the name "PorridgeBee" when they are 25 perhaps they would prefer their old username is not generally mentioned and you should try to respect that as much as reasonable when they ask in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

One final comment. There's a big world out there besides the US. I have no idea why anyone would use the US SSA baby name database to try and prove anything other than the popularity of give names in the US in recent times. Definitely, when I search the name database, "Smith" does not show up. However AFAIK, it remains the most popular or definitely one of the top, family names in the US. Siti doesn't show up, but I would readily identify it as a name and probably would 99.9% or more of Malaysians and I think quite a higher percentage of Indonesians and Singaporeans too. Seven made it to 998 in 2019 and Queen in 2018 and 2019. I would not readily identify either of these as the real name of a human, sorry to those who have that as their name. Again there's nothing wrong with this, but if someone expresses concerns you talk/ask. You don't ignore and try to force the preservation when you don't understand the concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Having experienced real world harassment, I take a dim view of revealing a previous username if it reveals the user's real world identity. No reason to do it, ever, no matter how justified someone feels. Seems petty and childish to me. I see no reason to unblock appellant and find their mea culpa's disingenuous. They claim a rash, ill-considered act. Digging up someone's prior, real world identifying user name and then revealing it sounds coldly calculated and intimidating. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Mostly I agree with you, but the old username is clearly listed at the Arb case page, which doesn't exactly require any digging to find. Instead I'd ask Arbcom or the clerks to update that case page to the current user name and remove any mentions of the old one. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Who cares about 3RR, anyway, here. It happened or it didn't, doesn't matter in the slightest to me, really, whether I identified that in error. To that: I just revoked AL's talk page access, for continuing to use this very appeal to poke at VM. Linking to a Social Security search engine and linking the old username via the wiki search function? What is going on here? If AL wishes to continue participating in this appeal, let that be filtered through WP:UTRS first. Anyway, I am hoping this appeal will be be resolved quickly, so as to avoid any further distress to VM. And not because I care about this appeal dragging on due to myself. I've had, like what, 4 AE appeals in the last month (all declined), one ANI appeal higher up in this very page, that looks like it's gonna get declined, too. This is all par for the course for me. But all this emphasis being placed on VM old username, here, at AN. That's not right. El_C 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Editing other people's comments is usually hard to explain (although in this case it would prima facie be borderline acceptable, and definitively acceptable given AL's further behaviour, which makes them even more suspect than before). Said behaviour leads me to think they haven't gotten the memo and would likely continue this kind of disruptive edit if they were unblocked immediately (whether we should expect that to change in a week's time is a different question): oppose appeal. (Non admin comment) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unbelievable that Astral Leap would continue to double down. The block and subsequent removal of talk page access were both correct.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Linda Gottfredson

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

---

There is some edit-warring going on at this BLP, which is subject to discretionary sanctions. As I was involved in discussions a fw years ago (and have no experience with the application of DS) it would be good if another admin could have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Throttled, for now (direct link). El_C 12:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Constant removal of information

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

---

Chris Janson is once again subject to anonymous or new editors removing uncontroversial BLP content as seen in this diff.

This has been a long-standing issue with this article in particular. See the following:

• 2018 edit that gutted the article, including removal of the Holly Williams collabs; all by WP:SPA account Lboullt (talk · contribs)

• These edits by Thesongfan (talk · contribs) also removed the Holly Williams information in 2015

I used to write for a country music blog, and some inside information from my former editor implies that these edits are being made by Janson's wife. I have also had past correspondence with at least one of his lawyers who was looking to get the info removed, but one of them backed down after I pointed out the appropriate Wikipedia policies. (Sadly I did not save said correspondence.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: - is this something that can be handled by semi-protection? Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Might not be a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi'd 3 months. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Revert vandalism

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

---

I would like to request an admin revert the page Nathan Rich which is WP:BLP to a clean version. It's been locked from editing due to "edit-warring" -- except it wasn't an edit war, it was multiple users reverting obvious vandalism (the offender has already been blocked). It seems there's been an oversight that left the vandalism intact, and ironically, the unrevertable except by an admin. See also Talk:Nathan_Rich#Protected_edit_request_on_8_February_2021. DrIdiot (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is wrapped up, for now. El_C 14:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! DrIdiot (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Dealing with an Undproductive Moderator

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

---

• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since Wikipedia has no staff to communicate with when dealing with issues, I guess this is where I have to go to. For the last two years I've contributed many photos to Wikipedia. I've done this with the intention of adding relevant information to pages to improve the Wikipedia experience.

Yesterday, I added a photo of a river otter to the Puget Sound page, and was given this message by Magnolia677, "Please stop adding low-quality photos. I see I already asked you two years ago. Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Thank you. Magnolia677"

I had already read the page about image relevance. Magnolia667 was referring to the photo I added to the Puget Sound page, which I can agree wasn't a high quality photo, so I won't add photos like that in the future. However, I saw that my high quality photos recently added to pages had all been deleted. I figured Magnolia667 had been taking them off of all the pages and I was correct. I tried to put the photos back on the pages a while later, and got this message from Magnolia667 on my talk page,

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Washington (state). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop edit warring and discuss the addition of your personal photo album on the talk page. Magnolia677"

I talked to Magnolia677 about this on their talk page. I explained how I understand they thought one of my images was low quality and got rid of it, but asked them why they were taking away all my other photos. This was the response I got,

"Just because you visited a place, and took some pictures there, does not mean every one of your photos can be added to a Wikipedia article. I urge you to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. For example, adding a photo of a river to an article about a different river, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a close up picture of a water tower to an article about a US state is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of a canyon to an article where there is already a picture of the same canyon, and that picture is better than yours, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of some place in darkness is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of a fish in a stream to an article about a waterfall is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of bird in a tree to an article about a river is probably going to be reverted. This is just from memory. Please stop adding your personal photo album to Wikipedia!"

I then explained how these photos were relevant to the pages. The photo of a Coho salmon in Multnomah Creek was relevant for the Multnomah Falls page because the salmon was spotted just below the waterfall in Lower Multnomah Creek. The photo of bald eagles I put on the Snake River page was taken directly above the Snake River, and I added the photo to the section of the Wikipedia page that is about the birds that inhabit the Snake River. Magnolia667 clearly went on an emotionally-driven rant and continued deleting my photos from Wikipedia pages.

If I'm to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I do not want the user Magnolia677 to have the privilege to delete photos I contribute to Wikipedia. For two years I've contributed to Wikipedia, and the most of a thank you I get is Manolia677 threatening to ban me from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 insulted the photos I've added to pages, saying they are "low-quality photos" and that other photos on the pages I contribute to are better than mine. I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia if Magnolia677 continues to hunt down any photo I contribute only to delete it, and threaten to ban me from Wikipedia.

I am asking for an interaction ban so Magnolia677 can no longer delete my photos from pages for unfair reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Richardmouser You must notify any user you are discussing on this board of the existence of this discussion.(instructions at the top of this page in red) I would note that just because you disagree with the reasons given to you does not mean they are "unfair". 331dot (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)(talk page stalker)@Richardmouser: Do they go through your contribution list and delete all of your photos or do they find them on pages in their watchlist? A good way to check for this is to look at the page histories of the pages they removed your pictures from. If they’ve made multiple edits on multiple occasions prior to the removal, it’s probably in their watchlist. If they’ve made next to zero edits prior to the removal, they’re probably getting them from your contributions list. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Your edit here [61] added a photograph of a salmon to the article about Multnomah Falls per MOS:IRELEV this appears to have been correctly removed as irrelevant. Theroadislong (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Richardmouser, I can easily understand that as a professional photographer, willing to provide photographs for use in Wikipedia article, it would be very frustrating to find that one editor is making the decision to remove all contributed photos. Before I talk about an alternative approach, I will mention that I concur with Theroadislong that the removal of the coho salmon photo was appropriate. If there had been a couple of paragraphs in the article talking about ecological issues and mentioning that the existence of a coho salmon would be a big deal, it might've been relevant. I may regret posting the sentence is I want to emphasize that this is not the form to have that discussion. If someone proposes on the talk page that they should be more coverage of ecological issues and it turns out that the existence of a photo of a coho salmon might be relevant, then the decision could be revisited, but simply adding the photo with no context doesn't seem appropriate.

In most cases, photos added to an article are used to visually support some text. An article about a waterfall obviously ought to have a photo of the waterfall. if the article did not have a photo, adding such a photo could simply be done without further discussion. However, in many cases (especially when considering the replacement of one photo with another), it is highly desirable to open a discussion on the article talk page to explain the proposal to add a photo or replace an existing photo with another photo along with the rationale. In the case of a replacement, it may be as simple as gaining consensus of editors that the proposed replacement is a superior photo. In the case of an additional photo, editors would discuss whether adding the photo improve the article, and might discuss whether existing text is sufficient to justify the photo or whether additional text would be needed and is relevant to the article. If such a discussion takes place, and a consensus of editors agrees with the addition or replacement, it is highly unlikely that an admin would come along and remove the photo.

I haven't looked at any of the other photos to see what issues were involved, but I have seen, unfortunately, a number of instances where a photographer is attempting to add their own photos to an article because of the high profile of Wikipedia. I'm very interested in obtaining higher quality photos of many things, and know my skills as a photographer mean I need to look to others to do that, but there are proper ways to do it and less desirable ways to do it. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The best solution to this issue is that I will likely stop contributing to Wikipedia. It's been an honor contributing to Wikipedia for the last two years, but yesterday when I was told by Magnolia677 to stop contributing my "low-quality photos" and threatened to ban me, it was a sign that my time is up here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. It's an unfortunate overreaction. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

331dot, I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

331dot it's not an overreaction because they're threatening to ban me. Clearly you have the same personality as Magnolia677 so arguing with you is pointelss.

S Philbrick, thank you for your understanding of the situation. I understand that the photo of the Coho salmon didn't have much to do with the page. However, as for the photos of bald eagles on the Snake River page, the photo was alongside a section about wildlife along the Snake River, emphasizing the birds more than any other wildlife. It's this one moderator's opinion that my photos are "low-quality" and irrelevent, which somehow makes it just that I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia. But I guess that's just how Wikipedia works. Again, I don't have a choice to continue posting to Wikipedia in reality. If you were told you're going to be banned from Wikipedia do you want people telling you it's an overreaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs)

• Well, the user in question isn't an administrator and has no power to ban you. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Richardmouser I don't seek to argue, I seek to discuss, and that's what you should do as well. Please explain why your photos are not low quality if you feel that they are the opposite, and if you feel that they are relevant, please explain how. Others have explained to you the reason for their views and cited policy in doing so. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mackensen for clarifying that they themselves cannot ban me. However, they have the power to track any photo I contribute and delete it. There isn't going to be much of a point for me to contribute photos if every one of them will be deleted immediately.

In response to 331dot, I have contributed photos to many of Wikipedia's most viewed pages and have been there for a long time. I don't want to tell what those pages are, because if you or anyone else decided you didn't like me, you could go find the photos and delete them. What I'm trying to say is that my photos were appreciated and acknowledged, until yesterday Magnolia677 decided they will delete any photo I try to post. Now out of a sudden, any photo I try to contribute will be deleted. It's devastating to me as I enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, but now it seems I don't have that option anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Richardmouser, Magnolia677 can't sanction you. They are not an admin. And I (who am an admin) take a dim view to them slapping you with a {{uw-disruptive2}} warning (maybe WP:DTTR, to begin with, Magnolia677). BTW, Richardmouser, I find File:Sacagawea_Statue_in_Salmon.jpg, for example, to be quite the opposite of low quality. That's an awesome photograph! Great photographs, overall (commons:Special:ListFiles/Richardmouser). I, for one, sincerely thank you for your contributions. El_C 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: it's a fine photo but can someone explain to me why it hasn't been deleted as failing Commons:COM:FOP US? We would need the artist's release (created by Agnes Vincen Talbot in 2005) to publish it under a free-use copyright and I see no evidence that we have it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, who knew it was even a thing? Not sure https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/statue-of-sacagawea-at-interpretive-center-in-salmon-id.htm or http://www.sacajaweacenter.org/ do, either. But since the latter cites us, I'll cite them: Those who can, do. Those who can do more, volunteer. El_C 12:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, Those websites could have a license from the sculptor (they don't have to tell you of their agreement with the sculptor) or they could be claiming fair use. But Commons can't and Wikipedia must go by WP:NFCC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, well, nps.gov is citing Creative Commons 2.0 by someone else, but sure, makes sense (who knows). I'm not really active on Commons, anyway. I was just unaware of that part of the law, is all I was saying. El_C 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, the CC license is for the photograph itself. But the rights of the work of art within the photograph generally belongs to the artist not the photographer (the photographer 'owns' the rest of the image, or rather the photographer owns the whole image, but there is something within the image someone else (the sculptor) has rights in). If I'm the NPS and I have an agreement with the sculptor, it's fine for me (possibly cheaper, etc.) to use someone's nice commons licensed photo, or if I am illustrating an educational resource I manage I might claim fair use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me in easy-to-understand terms. Much appreciated. El_C 00:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Richardmouser What is the source of your extreme mistrust of other editors such as me? I don't know you and have no motivation to chase after you. I think this whole situation is an overreaction to one badly placed warning. I would urge you to not flush your Wikipedia career down the toilet over this. Please focus on discussing any disputes and not paranoia. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much El_C!! I really appreciate that. If there is a solution to this conflict, I will be happy to continue contributing photos to Wikipedia. I believe in the world having free access to photography, and it would be my honor to continue contributing photos to this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the quality of the photographs, they all look excellent there may have been some injudicious placing of them, but that is for discussion on the relevant article talk pages not here. Keep taking the photos and keep uploading, but try to ensure they actually illustrate the articles they are posted in. Good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Richardmouser, I took a look at a lot of your photos on Wikipedia Commons, and many of them are excellent. I am interested in mountaineering so I enjoyed the photos of Mount Hood and Denali. Then I noticed your shot of the Palouse taken from the University of Idaho. My parents first met at that university 71 years ago, so I was really moved by that. I very much hope that you will keep contributing, and I thank you for your contributions to date. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Awesome Cullen328, I will keep posting! It's my duty as a photographer to share photos with the world. And Theroadislong I will keep this in mind, agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Magnolia677's edits were wholly appropriate, and I have re-removed several of these images after Richardmouser readded them, as well as some others. Richard, many of your photos are very good and help depict the article's subjects. However, some photos are bad and do not illustrate their subjects. For example this photo of an otter is clearly heavily cropped and/or digitally zoomed and it's not actually obvious that this small head sticking out of the water is an otter without a caption. Moreover, this does not help the reader understand what Puget Sound looks like. I agree that that salmon photo appeared fuzzy and did not at all illustrate Multnomah Falls. This landscape image is crooked and is not the quality desired for an article about a state, so please be careful in only selecting your best. Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Richardmouser: I tend to agree with most of the comments made by others, above. Your are clearly an excellent photographer and you're not going to get banned for misplacing photos in articles unless you start EDITWARRING over them. However I do think your judgement has been unsound in a few instances; and I suggest you request deletion of three of your recent, uncategorised images on Commons because they have no encyclopaedic merit here at all here: (this one - out of focus, not good quality, not-encyclopaedic; this one - frankly, of no use whatsoever here; and this one - a blurry fish, not useful in any way unless it's incredibly rare, and the only shot available of its kind). But your other uploads are mostly superb, and very welcome additions to Wikimedia Commons. So keep on contributing, please. But remember: the right image then has to be used in the right way in an encyclopaedia article, and it's OK for other editors to remove them from a page if they think it not the right one to use there. You shouldn't take a few misjudgements like that personally. It's best to have a simple discussion about with that editor, or on the article talk page, and not to get upset about it. Looking at your talk page, I don't feel Magnolia677 was especially unreasonable in leaving a 'templated' message for you, and was quite right to take a look at what other pictures you added to articles. Most were well judged; some were not. It probably didn't help that your user page states: "I want to publish photos on as many pages as I can." That would have been made a number of experienced editors wonder whether you were here to add your photos for all the right reasons, and I would certainly have been tempted to take a further look had I read that, too. In essence, I think you over-reacted a bit and jumped to the wrong conclusions, and there are certainly no grounds for any sort of interaction ban between you and Magnolia677 editor at all. Perhaps through not understanding how our advice and warning systems work you have felt unfairly treated. I don't think that's the case, though I am sorry that you felt that way. Please continue to use your best judgement in uploading only the most useful images you have - ignore uploading simple record shots of common taxa where other, better images already exist on Commons - and ensure you critically consider whether what you might deem as your 'favourite shot' would be seen by other readers of this encyclopaedia in the same way when they didn't have that deeply personal experience of looking through the viewfinder alongside you. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, Magnolia677 sent me more than a 'templated' message. This user conducted what was clearly an emotionally-driven rant of deleting photos from any page I tried contributing to. The messages not 'templated' that were sent to me clearly had words of anger and frustration in the context. But I don't need to discuss this issue anymore, the admin has spoken with me about this and there doesn't seem to be an issue with me trying to contribute photos to Wikipedia, so I will continue my attempt of contributing photos like you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the concern that some may think I was overreacting. I just want to be sure I can still post to Wikipedia without one single person trying to delete anything I post. It seems this conflict is settled for now, I will try to continue contribtuing photos to Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I will endeavor to seek input before removing images, as I have done today at Talk:Colorado#Replacement of image. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

"Trigger"

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

---

• Aromanians in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Somebody please tell "Super Dromaeosaurus" that this isn't Facebook, and that this kind of language is not acceptable. I'm so pissed that I don't even care for warning this editor, and I'm biting my tongue while saying "editor". Drmies (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Um... are you seriously an administrator? Super Ψ Dro 22:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Don't antagonize Drmies any further, please. Be more polite and don't use offensive language.
@Drmies: He isn't a native speaker, so let's take that into consideration. Dromaeosaurus maybe doesn't understand the term's entire connotations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been called disruptive, threatened to be blocked, reported on here, and apparently my intention to being an editor is being doubted by this user, AND I'm the one antagonizing people over here?? And as far as I know, "trigger" is a synonym of "annoy". If its something worse, my bad, but anything else about this situation is being overly exaggerated. How am I being warned by three editors as far but this person gets nothing for getting so angry over this edit? Super Ψ Dro 23:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I know Drmies reverted your edit and left you a templated warning, but I didn't see where you were threatened with a block by him? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

MJL, that's what {{uw-unsourced3}} says: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. El_C 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Ah, missed that. The talk is pretty hard to read on mobile. Yeah, that was pretty much overkill. Drmies should probably apologise for that. It wasn't very nice. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

MJL, what is appropriate, you think, for an editor who knowingly restores unverified information while acknowledging they were restoring unverified information? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: You kindly (and patiently) try to write them a note and explain the seriousness of our policies. If that's not worth doing (for whatever the case may be) then you maybe start with {{uw-unsourced2}}? You certainly don't escalate the matter this quickly, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume you've never used a templated warning in your life? But seriously, a user insults me and then I should apologize for being insulted--cause it was all my fault? Next time you want to patronize me, don't bother pinging. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm really confused by Drmies' edit summary; none of the list's links are external links; the blue links are all links to preexisting articles on here. I think he meant that each item on the list should have a citation to establish verifiability? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Which edit summary of mine? This is the one for the revert we're talking about. It echoes this one. You are confusing it with this one, which pertains to External links and has nothing to do with the warning for the editor. The warning was never about External links--I find it odd you'd think that there would be blue links to Wikipedia articles in an External links section; surely you know what "external" means. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that is my oversight as I was looking at the one previous. I still have to agree the warning seems overly excessive for a regular. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, no, the problem is very simple. The idea that a seasoned admin would challenge you because he is "triggered" is entirely inappropriate. We weren't born yesterday. Dial back the rhetoric please. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ugh okay do whatever you want but leave me alone already. Block me for one revert and for saying "triggered". But know that this whole discussion is completely biased. I find it amazing that so many people are turning against me over such a childish and simple thing. I am losing a lot of respect for admins today (although it seems that there is at least one whose first reaction has not been to throw himself against me). Super Ψ Dro 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Folks, honestly, it is possible for the meaning of words to get lost in translation. I remember, I think it was in 2017, when I first heard the term snowflake and I had no idea what it meant. I think I recall being confused about the context, asking the editor (whom I believe I had blocked): are you calling yourself "snowflake" (as in good) or me "snowflake" (as in bad)? Then they explained it to me (they were not gentle!). El_C 23:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Calm down. You aren't going to be blocked over this. Just let people discuss the issue, and things will play out the right way. I know this can be stressful, but please just take a step back and stop replying so much, okay? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to wrap up the "triggered" part of this dispute amicably(ish), at least. And I think, MJL, that your first instinct was right. Super Dromaeosaurus admits that they were unaware of the "connotations" — they thought it was just a synonym for, as they say above, "annoyed." Which I totally believe. They may speak English in an advanced level, but their native tongue is Spanish. It isn't at all unreasonable for them to be an established editor on the English Wikipedia, while still not picking up on the "Trigger warning" facet of it (yes, it is in Trauma_trigger#In_higher_education, but you have to really know what you're looking for in order to properly absorb that). El_C 00:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any dictionary in which "trigger" equals "annoy". Wrap it up if you like, El C, but, if you don't mind, tell the editor that there's nothing childish about WP:V. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm actually kind of taken aback by this response. English-as-a-second language speakers don't just study dictionaries to learn new words (well some probably do, but it's obviously not common). English has so many idioms and anachronistic terms that there would be little point to picking up words with anything besides hearing others use a term and the relevant context clues. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Trigger" used in this way is the opposite of an "anachronistic" usage; what would be odd would be for an ESL speaker to use "trigger" to mean "annoy", a very modern meaning, without knowing the values attached to it. I don't understand the second part of your third sentence, but I'm not sure it matters. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, agreed. Solidly in m:DICK territory. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm probably gonna leave that to someone else, Drmies — I feel like I've been poked and prodded enough today to be wary of seeking any more of it. But, as someone who learned English pretty much on-the-fly, I have made some truly bizarre errors in my days, ones that would often just floor whichever native speaker I was communicating with at the time. And I still do, even, from time to time (just a lot less than before). El_C 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• That lvl 3 warning doesn't seem justified to me. Also if there is something wrong with saying someone was "triggered", that's news to me, too. Does the word have a meaning in unfamiliar with? Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a very common taunt to ask if someone is "triggered". Many people also find it to be offensive or at least insensitive to use as a synonym for "annoyed" or "bothered" given its quite serious meaning for those with PTSD and other mental health disorders. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • And the original diff given is certainly implying the insulting form of "triggered" in context. --Masem (t) 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

      This was clearly used in the context of a taunt, an insult, or trolling. "haha one single revert triggers you that much". SQL^{Query me!} 03:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

      Well yes, but nobody should be posting at AN about a taunt, insult, or trolling — one rude comment isn't even worthy of ANI, but AN is def not the right place. If any non-admin posted this here (or at ANI), it'd be promptly closed as not actionable. This smacks to me of Drmies asking for fellow admins to back him up in a dispute. The quoted comment is a variation of the common retort "triggered much?" and I agree it's insulting, rude, a taunt, definitely insensitive and I can see the case for it even being offensive... but a lvl 3 template for a single revert is also what I would call a taunt, an insult, or trolling. If I reverted someone and they gave me a lvl 3 template for it, I would probably also respond with rude words. I do not believe this thread is a proper use of this noticeboard. AN should not be used as an "admins' club" for admins to get help from other admins in interpersonal disputes, and in this dispute, I see Drmies as being far more at fault for the excessive template and the escalation to AN, than Super's choice of words in response. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Iranian provocateur on wikipedia

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

---

I don't understand why Iranian contributors roll back legal edits concerning Balochi? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1005352184

Chasing Balochi Articles and rolling back legal edits while making fake edits is complete vandalism by the Iranians!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baloch_people#Please_protect_the_Baloch_people_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali banu sistani (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. This user is making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, and attempted to add a non-WP:RS citation, which I reverted, hence why he reported me for some bizarre reason. Not to mention he has WP:NPA issues, as he keeps calling me "Iranian" and "Parsi", as seen here for example. Not to mention he randomly calls my edits for "fake" and "vandalism." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Articles created by Haunted Spy

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

---

• Haunted Spy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive308#Billy Chemirmir
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive317#Persistent BLPCRIME violations by Haunted Spy

Could something be done to stop this editor's creation of articles with serious policy violations, including egregious WP:BLP violations? Some examples;

Billy Chemirmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created, and Haunted Spy's originial version looked like this. Despite the last sentence of the lead stating His trial is scheduled to begin on April 5, 2021 it describes him as a serial killer as fact, and in the "Exposure" section states as fact he committed certain crimes has yet to be convicted of.

Samuel Legg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (since deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Legg) described him as a serial killer, despite the subject being found unfit to stand trial (which Haunted Spy had got completely wrong when adding him to List of serial killers in the United States, incorrectly interpreting that as Found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for life to Twin Valley Behavioral Health Center). For transparency, unfit to stand trial generally happens before a trial gets underway. Not guilty by reason of insanity would be something that happens at the end of a trial, when a jury (or judge(s), depending on where the trial is) return a verdict that the defendant did commit the crime but was mentally ill at the time. They are not the same thing.

Deangelo Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (since deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deangelo Martin) described him as a serial killer and stated as fact he had committed serious crimes, despite being on trial at the time.

Grand Rapids Prostitute Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is their most recent article. While not containing any obvious WP:BLP violations, it's a complete distortion of the sources, a violation of WP:NPOV and has the result to cause distress to the dead women's friends and families. The article states as fact there is an unidentified serial killer responsible for the deaths of 11, or potentially 12, women, and also that All of the victims were either engaged in prostitution or had drug addictions. There are 4 sources.

1. "Police try to crack string of slayings" Lansing State Journal. November 3, 1996.
2. Ed White (November 10, 1996). "Task Force Hunts Possible Serial Killer of 11 Women". Los Angeles Times.
3. Ed White (October 31, 1996). "Victim No. 11: Dead Woman Had History of Prostitution". Associated Press.
4. Lee Lupo (April 25, 2008). "Parents waits for answers in daughter's 1996 murder". Booth Newspapers.

I have not seen source#1 due to it needing an account, but as it is dated after the Associated Press article and before the LA Times article I am highly skeptical that it contradicts the consistent police stance in those. Source #2 says Authorities are puzzled by the slayings of 11 women in the region, including nine with links to the sex trade and quotes a worker at a harbor for sex workers as saying she believed a serial killer was responsible, while saying police weren't sure but acknowledged it was possibly a serial killer. Source#3 says Most of the slain women were prostitutes or drug users and Police aren’t sure whether a serial killer is responsible. ``It’s not appropriate to say it’s one person,″ Grand Rapids police Lt. Carol Price said Wednesday. Source#4 doesn't even use the term "serial killer".

So despite one source saying nine out of eleven had links to the sex trade, and another saying that "most" of them were prostitutes or drug users, it has become a fact that "all" the victims were prostitures or drug users. Despite the fact the two sources quote the police as saying they aren't sure it was a serial killer that was reponsible, it has become a fact that a serial killer was reponsible for 11, or potentially 12 deaths. How can this editor be allowed to create articles such as this? 92.40.188.18 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoa! Critical warning issued (direct link). El_C 15:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have draftified the newest article and linked to these concerns on its talk page. The user has sadly never been informed about the discretionary sanctions in this area. I have now done so, and if they continue to violate the biographies of living persons policy, they will be topic banned from the area without further warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Wait, do we allow PROXYING?

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

---

A few days ago, I blocked Mathsci (ANI complaint) for a month due to an WP:IBAN violation. I've allowed them to engage in some content discussions while blocked, just to wrap up anything outstanding, but today I put my foot down, citing WP:PROXYING (diff), but imagine my surprise when I read where it qualified its prohibition with: unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. My operating assumption had always been that PROXYING on the part of blocked users (established or otherwise) is a prohibited act. Was I incorrect this entire time? Or am I otherwise missing something simple here and am just being stupid (likely)? Thanks! El_C 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the point of that exception. If a community and WMF banned editor points out that our article on living subject A says they are a paedophile with no sourcing, it's ridiculous to sanction someone because they fixed this after noticing the comment from the banned editor. It doesn't mean the banned editor is allowed to continue at it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: The exact text appears to have been in place since at least 2012, but I don't know when the spirit of the exception was put in. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, well, of course I already assume that an WP:EMERGENCY trumps all. But, otherwise, "independent reasons" reads pretty vague to me. Am I the only one confused by this? El_C 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I chose an extreme example to illustrate the point, but because this is an area covered by WP:BANEX perhaps it risks more confusion. But anyway, just think of an example where the change is clearly warranted and not covered by banex e.g. an editor seriously added that a long dead individual is a murderer/traitor/prolific liar/whatever to the lead (think for example Stalin, George Washington, Richard Nixon) and a banned editor points this out. Should we sanction someone for reverting this change after noticing the banned editor's comment? The answer is surely no. However the banned editor is still not allow to request or discuss such changes, and it's fine to crack down on their attempts to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Going off the text of the policy there, it seems like what it is saying is that you take full responsibility for any edits you make on behalf of a blocked editor (you can't turn around and say "but they told me to do it!" as a defence). I have a different interpretation to NE above, I think: blocked editors are free to do so, but the community may not take too kindly to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, in this case, it involved fairly nuanced edits concerning Classical music (not the article, the topic area), so nothing urgent or of immediate significance to the project's reputation. Sdrqaz, I guess what I'm saying is that, when I cite a policy page, I'd like for it to make immediate sense, which I'm not finding to be the case here. El_C 16:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think the first part of the sentence is slightly misleading, but when I read the whole sentence it makes sense. Given that it's quite a big exception, maybe the first part needs to be made less unequivocal. Maybe some sort of clarification RfC is in order. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, a key reason for my inquiry here concerns the enforcement practices of other admins about PROXYING by blocked users. El_C 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. As shown above, NE and I have differing interpretations. Like I said, a policy RfC may be in order to dispel any doubts. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is an area of policy I've always been slightly woolly on myself. I have often seen it said that the only legitimate use for a blocked user's talk page is to make an unblock request, but this isn't supported by any of the wording at WP:UP (there is some stuff about illegitimate use of talk when blocked at WP:UP#PROTECT, but nothing that would prohibit making good faith suggestions about changes to articles). WP:BLOCKEVASION has the same verbiage as WP:PROXYING, which in my view reads as 'don't edit on behalf of a blocked editor unless you're willing to stand by merits of the changes they suggest'. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is a bit vague on this, and look forward to hearing others' views. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Say a banned editor says something which makes you think "ah, that's a good idea", just because it turned out to be a banned editor suddenly is everyone now prohibited from adding text along those lines because it would be classed as proxying? Sounds like an illogical application of policy. I'd call those "independent reasons" personally. I agree with Girth's interpretation myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • ProcrastinatingReader, the flipside to the presumed usefulness of (casual) content engagement by a blocked user is that it can be seen to be defeating the block action itself, with the user still being allowed to effectively edit. True, not business-as-usual editing, but effective editing nonetheless. El_C 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Possibly akin to COI editors using edit requests? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Right, that's a decent parallel, except with COI users not otherwise being under a block sanction (or, at most, may be partially blocked). El_C 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

      I think the best one can do is wait for an admin to block the banned editor. I think there's a difference between this vs me knowing an editor is banned and offering to make any edits they tell me to make (ie proxying).

      Otherwise this is effectively prohibitions on the addition of content on the basis that a blocked editor brainstormed it first. Next thing you know you'll have LTAs posting on WP:AN trying to get editors blocked for "proxying because I came up with the idea first!! DIFF." (hopefully not a WP:BEANS violation!). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, but this isn't really helping me yet to decide on how to proceed with the matter of Mathsci, or in general, for similar future cases. El_C 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been discussed a time or two.

• Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_6#Proxy_edits
• Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_7#Proxy_editing_for_banned_users
• Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_8#Proxying_for_blocked_users?
• Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_23#RfC:_Blocked_editors_and_their_talk_pages
• Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_21#Proxy_editing
• Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_19#Use_of_talk_page_while_blocked
• Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_24#Requesting_clarification_of_EVASION_and_proxying
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Improper_use_of_talk_page_while_blocked

The general consensus has been that there's no consensus, and it's decided on a case-by-case basis.

I frequently patrol CAT:RFU, and regularly see this explained to blocked editors - and occur. SQL^{Query me!} 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would've thought User_talk:Mathsci#Hymn_tune is proxying, since it's continuous communication on making edits, but I don't think anyone should actually be sanctioned for that since it seems to be an honest confusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanctioning was never on the table. Just wondering how to further instruct them on this matter... El_C 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that, pragmatically, the discussion seems to be productive so perhaps a blind eye doesn't hurt. Then again, a lot of banned/blocked-editor-enforcement isn't pragmatic, and (for example) admins have previously rained G5 fire on good creations by banned users when discovered, so YMMV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's the point, it is productive — but should allowances be made by virtue of that, is what I find challenging at the present moment. El_C 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

So long the edits are productive and are not in violation of the IBAN (Or, if we're talking more generally, attempts to request edits in clear evasion of a block), and especially if it involves editors otherwise in good standing (as much as violating an IBAN with one other sometimes problematic but good standing editor is), I'd call WP:IAR (emphasis: "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it.") and be done with it. In any case, WP:BLOCK is rather clear that these are preventive and not punitive measures; if such talk page discussion is not disruptive nor causing/requesting disruption, I'd be inclined to give experienced editors a fair bit of leeway, especially since there's nothing disruptive being prevented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Its not allowed unless you’re an established editor with friends, then it is. What SQL says is the more diplomatic way of saying this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• RandomCanadian, the problem with invoking WP:IAR for this is that it has potentially serious implications which immediate productivity may not offset. Will established editors take greater risks with the knowledge that, worse come to worse, if they're blocked, they can just continue editing from their own talk page with the help of a friend? Anyway, I try to peer deep and far. El_C 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• As I see it there are two possibilities with this. The first is that the block/ban is valid and such proxying should not be allowed. The second is that proxying should be allowed, which means that the block/ban shouldn't have been applied in the first place. The situation where an editor can't edit in theory but can in practice is simply bizarre. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, there was an unblock request, which was declined (diff), as far as this specific case is concerned, at least. El_C 20:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

SPI backlog is back

Hi everyone, the SPI backlog is back! (and unlike the McRib it doesn't look to be going anywhere.) While the work of the SPI clerk team and CU team handle many of these, I just wanted to post a note reminding people that we need admins to regularly patrol it, and that there is not any special permission to do so. The blocking policy allows any admin to block for disruption, and socking is part of that.

While some of the cases can be complex, many of them are straightforward and can be easily resolved without the need for CU or that much time. There's just a huge volume, so help is very much appreciated. If anyone has any questions about how to patrol SPIs, or would like to ask questions before getting more involved, feel free to reach out to me, and I'm sure any other CU or member of the SPI would be happy to help as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is generally not as much work as it sounds like. As an admin, all you really need to do is look at the evidence that's already been provided and decide whether it's convincing enough to block someone. You don't have to do your own investigation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI reform proposal

At a discussion about conduct resolution systems at the VP idea lab, I suggested that we may be able to significantly improve ANI discussions by adding a bit more structure and reducing the amount of crosstalk between editors directly involved in disputes. Levivich and ProcrastinatingReader seemed to think that it would be a good idea (and isaacl seems to have, possibly independently, come to a similar conclusion further down in the section), so I think it's appropriate to bring it here for a bit more input before making a formal proposal at the village pump.

My suggested reform would be as follows: we add a rubric for new ANI cases that has separate headers for responses by parties to the dispute, and a section for neutral parties to discuss. After a case has been filed, other editors who are directly party to the dispute (whether because they are named by the filing editor or because they independently believe that they are sufficiently involved to be involved in the dispute), can respond once in the appropriate section. No one directly involved dispute, including the filing editor, should make any further comments unless explicitly asked by an uninvolved 3rd party. At their discretion, third parties can deliberate among themselves, add their opinions, and/or carve out additional subsections for disputing editors to answer questions or make further comments. Deviations from the rubric by involved editors should be addressed first with warnings (as well as either refactoring or collapsing of the improper comments as appropriate), and eventually with blocks once the failure to comply with process becomes clearly tendentious.

Draft rubric for the proposal (view in source to see additional in-line notes to help editors fill out the form)

Involved editors <!-- Please list involved editors and/or affected pages below this line --> Filing editor: YourUserNameHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ExampleUserName (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Affected Page Dispute overview by filing editor <!--Please give a brief description of the issue here. The inclusion of [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] highlighting the problematic behavior and attempts to resolve it before coming here are strongly advised. Note that you will not be allowed to respond further until asked by an uninvolved editor. Please be patient until then, and remember that if an editor casts aspersions or makes false allegations against you, it will reflect poorly on them when the discussion is evaluated by third parties. --> Statements by other editors involved in the dispute <!--Please add a brief statement regarding the issue raised above in the appropriately named subsection header. If you do not see your name, but believe that you are in fact involved in this case, whether as a defendant or complainant, feel free to add a level-4 subsection heading and add your comments. Note that as a party to the dispute, you are allowed only one comment here, and should not reply further until specifically asked by an uninvolved editor. --> Statement by ExampleUserName Statements by uninvolved editors <!--Uninvolved editors may discuss the case freely here. Depending on the nature of the case, it may be helpful to ask editors involved in the dispute for further input; feel free to moderate in whichever way seems most helpful, either adding additional subsections to allow for their responses, or directing them to use their existing subsections. -->

• I <nowiki>'d the "additional in-line notes" so we don't have to view the source. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing people's thoughts on this proposal. If this or a similar proposal gains consensus, we can also see about implementing a nicer webform for it a la Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. As an added note, I think that SebastianHelm's handling of this open ANI case, while not identical to the above proposal, is a great example of how much cleaner ANI discussions can be when disputants are prevented from interacting with each other (another, messier case also related to Nagorno-Karabakh provides a good contrast). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I like, with a few comments. It’s already public knowledge that this format (which is currently used at AE) is far more successful and likely to result in good outcomes (or indeed, a conclusive outcome at all) than the current free-for-all at ANI, which is often characterised by bludgeoning and excessive back and forth. For clarity, I think all “comments by uninvolved editors” should be in one section for all (not separate sub sections per editor, like in ArbCom statements). It could be said that many disputes at ANI are more minor, short affairs that don’t require a formalised structure. True, although one still doesn’t really seem to hurt for them. Possibly the “no further comments unless asked” can be relaxed. Perhaps the filing editor has something useful to add as the discussion progresses even if not explicitly asked. So long as they’re confined to their own section it can’t entirely hurt the rest of the discussion, with few exceptions (such as the lengthy chemistry periodic table disputes). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with your statement about having all uninvolved editors together in one section, and intended that to be the suggestion as part of my original proposal, apologies if that wasn't sufficiently clear. I think that would strike a good balance between bureaucracy and free-form, as it prevents bludgeon-happy editors from going at each others' throats while still allowing uninvolved editors to quickly discuss blocking IP-hoppers or editors making legal threats, types of cases that tend to be low-drama even in the current format. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like, at the moment, the proposal overlooks that WP:AE has a word count. Which may be pivotal in a number of ways. El_C 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would consider a word count limit to be a friendly amendment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unequivocally, I think we should try it. That said, I'm suspicious of the cost-benefit calculus. For all the downsides of our current AN(I) discussion structure (well recorded in the OP) the low overhead required to report an editor is a feature and we should consider what we might lose by increasing the complexity. Namely, a lot of low level problems that we could easily handle may not get reported because the aggrieved editor may think it's not worth the paperwork. To speculate a bit, perhaps our problem is too few reports? AN(I) is deep in project space and filing a report can seem like arcane magic. For most casual editors encountering a problem, I really doubt they'd know to go to AN(I) or AE or ARCA or .... but I'm digressing. The proposal is a well designed solution to a recognized problem and therefore is worth a shot. I don't think it will solve all our problems, and we may need to reevaluate when and how to use it, so I'd want to revisit its use after a couple months. TL;DR I think this will be a useful tool in our toolbox but I'm suspicious of it being a full-on replacement---let's try it and see how it goes. (edit conflict × 2) — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe, Wug, this shouldn’t be required for all but encouraged for editors who suspect they have more nuanced disputes (rather than just the variety which are an admin immediately replying “indeffed”)? Other editors can always clerk and adjust an existing discussion into the format if it quickly turns out the filer’s judgement on the format not being required was mistaken. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) FWIW, I don't think that this proposal really adds much of a burden to a filing editor--if it did we'd likely see more reports filed at ANI that belong at 3RR or AIV (i.e. editors not understanding those boards' formats coming to the "simpler" ANI board to file a complaint). We'd still be missing anyone that finds navigating WP space too complicated full-stop, but addressing that issue will likely take a separate proposal (although implementing a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request-style flowchart for ALL disputes, letting editors figure out which resolution methods are appropriate by answering a few questions, may help that problem).

I think one question (edit conflcit, which ProcrastinatingReader raised above) that does need to be answered is how to go about trying out this reform, whether to try to gain a consensus now to overhaul ANI immediately (and possibly reverse the change if something goes wrong), or start a separate board (e.g. WP:ANI/B) where we can demo the new process without disrupting any existing process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The biggest thing about the current ANI is the massive number of talk page watchers, built up over many years. Starting a new board may not be successful due to that reason, rather than just having an optional (but encouraged) format on the existing board initially. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh implementation is easy imo. Just have the "open a new report" button preload the text you have here. Check out the example edit I made to the header. People can still use the "new section" tab to create a blank one, but I suspect most reports that need the template use the button anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is brought in, would it be possible to get a bot to notify those editors who are the subject of the complaint raised? Suggest a bot run every 15 mins at :00, :15, :30, and :45 past the hour. That would cut down on the perennial complaints of non-notification, especially when the filer is an IP or inexperienced editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• How useful to find that Wugapodes has already articulated more or less what I was thinking. Certainly good to experiment with things, but I'm skeptical that there's more than a minority of cases here which would be helped by such a structure. Also worth noting that imposing such a structure doesn't just cease catering to the loud and loquacious; it shifts to cater to a different group: the more technical communicators who can express themselves adequately with lots of constraints put upon them. Also, a brief counterpoint to "not very well": our dispute resolution structures work much better than they have any business doing, with volunteers actually sorting out many disputes between volunteers on a project anyone can participate in which also happens to be one of the most popular in the world. (This isn't an argument not to try something new -- just a reminder that we're actually not doing too badly). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical that there's more than a minority of cases here which would be helped by such a structure — that. El_C 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  The thing is, it's a minority of cases that cause all the problems. 80/20 rule. So I'd support trying this on the "problem threads". (It's not necessary for every, or even most, threads.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No, absolutely not. The process we have now is not necessarly great - but it's also not broken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Could a clerk role be useful in structuring the 20% in this format, while leaving the 80% alone? Given the number of us that try and be helpful / "enjoy the drama", I'm sure there are more than a few that would volunteer. Slywriter (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think the idea of creating more structure to ANI's most difficult discussions is a good idea. However, that's not a large majority of ANI filings. So perhaps coming up with a method to institute this for those discussions, after it has begun, could produce much of the desired results with fewer unintended consequences. Like if this makes people file fewer ANI reports, including fewer that end up in quick boomerrang blocks, I argue that's ultimately bad for us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am not a member of the community who believes that ANI is broken and needs to be fixed. I think more than anything else, it simply needs more admin attention. As it is now, a small number of admins do the duty here, then get burned out and stop, and eventually come back, but there are a lot of admins who never seem to pay any attention to the board at all. I think more admin participation (and guidance) would be extremely helpful, but I am opposed to turning ANI into AE-light. The AE structure only works there because the universe of complaints is relatively small, which is not the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think something to remember here is that the strict rules at AE and other arbitration proceedings are there precisely because community processes like ANI have already failed to resolve the issue. AE in particular is for things that have already been to the committee and are still experiencing problems. I'm not sure applying the same restrictions to community-based processes makes a lot of sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Rosguill may I also suggest having replicatable subsection templates for "issue-supporting data" cause there may be multiple issues and it might be conducive to have them sectioned for easier discussion and resolution. Example: For the filer:- Issue1-Data and arguments around issue 1; Issue2-Data and arguments around issue 2. Vikram Vincent 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per others who have clearly stated that ANI isn't broken. The whole point of ANI is supposed to be ad hoc requests for intervention where there's no other suitable place to request it. I have no real problem with backend process and procedure—that is, how responding admins are supposed to handle these requests—but I don't think changes on the front end like requiring more structured discussion is a reasonable idea. BMK's 100% right in drawing the comparison to AE, and frankly, I think AE and ArbCom-led sanction regimes should be abolished in favor of community-led processes. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Worth a try. This format has done reasonably well on other community processes and it might help. I really don't understand why people are saying ANI isn't broken, on the contrary it's pretty notorious as a dysfunctional, horrific page and lots of people simply don't spend time there as a result. Hut 8.5 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The "It's not broken" people have as much evidence and justification to their arguments as the "It's pretty notorious as a dysfunctional, horrific page" people. And to be honest, even if its reputation is deserved, I argue that the freeform nature is necessary to fulfill its goal of being the "miscellaneous complaints" department. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the proposed system is incompatible with the page having a broad scope. WP:AE works perfectly well with something similar, for example, and cases on that page can cover all sorts of things. In my experience ANI isn't very good at dealing with complex issues. If you go there to report someone who obviously needs a block then it will be handled quickly, but if you take some protracted dispute there then you typically end up with gigantic walls of text which don't solve much, at least in part because they end up with lots of back and forth between the involved parties without much input from uninvolved editors. As I write this the top section, "Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy", is 22,000 words long and doesn't seem to have resolved anything except possibly to let one person know that there are lots of people concerned about their editing. Hut 8.5 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To paraphase a saying, it runs on the worst system there is - except for all of the rest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this doesn't have any consideration of what to do if, after using their one post, a party can see the participants (potentially multiple participants) going down a clearly wrong garden path. If they're not asked something, they're stuck between rock and a hard place. I also question the "public knowledge AE works better" - AE is smoother but trades it at a significant cost of fairness. This method also reduces the likelihood that participants will read every post before participating. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think some of the rules should be relaxed (eg feel free to add whatever in your own section, no round robin). Regarding reading each reply: most of the time there is no need to read every post. Many comments didn't have to be made in the first place; an involved party is bludgeoning people with their same argument over and over again. In the current ANI I think section # 1, 4, 9, 10 could benefit from structure. It, at very least, makes it much easier to get involved in a conversation, and also encourages the involved parties to reconsider whether their response adds anything, or if it just makes the discussion less attractive for another volunteer to want to spend their time examining. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support in principle This is an excellent idea, though I'd prefer a simpler format for the reports (maybe along the lines of WP:RFPP). The peanut gallery aspect of ANI is one of its worst dysfunctions, and I find makes it both a daunting place for me to seek to help out as an admin and a total crap shot when I lodge a report. A format like this would help, but would need to be adjusted to facilitate quick responses to obvious problems - e.g. there shouldn't be a need to wait for an obviously disruptive editor to respond to a complaint about them. A format which forces people making a report to set out their concerns in a succinct and non-emotive manner and encourages responses in kind could be very helpful in removing the drama element of ANI. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. We have too many bureaucratic processes as it is, and far too much rule creep. The complexity of Wikpedia's rules and regulations is one of the worst things about the back rooms/discussion/community aspects of the site. We have plenty of things we don't need, but one thing we definitely do need is a forum where someone (often a newcomer) can bring something to the attention of administrators simply and in their own words, without having to fill in official forms or structure it according to official formatting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, and if you want to know where the real problem here lies (if there's actually a problem at all, that is), read what User:Beyond My Ken said above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  And re: "It’s already public knowledge that this format (which is currently used at AE) is far more successful and likely to result in good outcomes...". No, it is most definitely not public knowledge that it is more likely to result in good outcomes... at ANI. AE is a very different thing, based on issues that have already gone through community processes and arbitration, via increasing levels of formality/bureaucracy (and, more importantly, the people involved have already been through those levels). And the format works well for that. It is a big mistake to assume that something that works well for AE will work well for ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough on the formality/bureaucracy, though how about if it's made optional? And uninvolved editors can refactor the few discussions that, after some discussion, look like they may benefit from structure. Sure, I suppose anyone can do that already, but few people do because such a degree of clerking would be slightly questionable under current practices. I suspect the discussions that might benefit from such structure tend to involve more experienced participants. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Following threaded discussion is hard enough without a self-appointed army of ANI clerks getting in the way. And remember, this is a site which attracts thousands of people who can't even work out how to make an unblock request, even though it's one of the simplest bits of formality we have and is (as far as I can see) very clearly explained in the standard block messages. Any formality at all at ANI is going to turn away non-technical people who actually need admin help. As for making it optional, that would not solve the problem it's supposed to be solving if people can ignore it and carry on as before. No, I essentially just see ANI as not actually broken and not needing fixing, at least not in a cosmetic way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boing - I see no problems with the current format, and we are bureaucratic enough already. Changing it will simply put off editors from making reports. GiantSnowman 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't watch ANI, because it's well, ANI. But if it is true there is some 20% that would benefit from this structure, I would suggest that for a trial period, Admins and the well versed be able to call a temporary halt to a 'sprawling mess' and impose the structure mid-way through going forward, just for those. Perhaps, think of it as a 'step' in dispute resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support in principle - BMK mentions above that not enough admins get involved at ANI, but part of the reason why it's unappealing is the endless walls of back-and-forth text between the involved parties that one has to wade through. Having a word limit attached might be sensible too for similar reasons. Most of the time, any relevant points can be made in an opening salvo, and all other text is just repetition. Happy to defer to others with more experience if they think it's unworkable, but I think this is worth giving a go.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think the endless walls of back-and-forth text between the involved parties can actually be beneficial. It keeps them away from disrupting productive areas of the project, and just having a place to rant can help cool things down. Just let them hammer away at each other for a bit, and it's surprising how often the argument just peters away without anyone having to do too much at all. And if admin action is needed, just tell the participants to summarize their points and address that, and completely ignore the walls of text. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, in principle. Perhaps there needs to be a division into quick/simple cases, that can be handled in an unstructured way, and non-simple cases, where a structured filing is required. Cases dealing with long-term behavioral problems, entrenched POV and battleground disputes affecting multiple editors definitely require a structured approach. These kinds of threads often devolve into complete train wrecks at ANI, with threads that can stay open for several weeks and grow into anwieldy messes, also poisoned by the votes of the various combatants themselves. A bureactatic structure is exactly what is required to bring some sanity in dealing with these kinds of cases. Nsk92 (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I've just looked over the reports currently at WP:ANI, thinking "Which of these would be made simpler, easier to follow, and easier to resolve if we imposed individual sections for parties, non-parties (and who decides who is a party?), a formal way of responding, imposed word counts or response counts, etc?" I think almost every one of the longer sections would turn into an impossible-to-follow mess of bureaucracy (even impossibler than they currently are), with no real benefits. And the simpler reports would have been made unnecessarily complex. Try it yourself and see what you think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between thinking something won't work, and being opposed to even trying it. Let's test predictions and make decisions based on data instead of assumptions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes indeed. But there is also the danger of "We need to try something, this is something, let's try it". It's a perfectly viable approach to look at existing cases and form an opinion on whether the proposed solution would help with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Why is that a "danger"? Trial and error isn't inherently dangerous, it's an effective way of finding a solution. I don't see any danger in trying Ros's suggestion to see if and how it works. To put it another way, the discussion shouldn't be about whether to try nothing or try something; it should be about what to try. This seems like a well thought out suggestion to me. It's not "this is something, let's try it" (which implies "something" being picked out of thin air or without due consideration), this is: unless we think ANI is perfect the way it is and can't be improved (and you'd have to be crazy to think that), then let's try something to improve it, and this is a "something" that we've tried with success elsewhere and has a very low risk of danger as a pilot. It certainly can't get any worse than how problematic threads currently go, like, say, those dealing with the periodic table or Kurds. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Sure, "danger" is the wrong word, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Before we try something, examining past problems to see if they would have been helped is a valid way to reduce the risk of wasted time and increase the chances of success. So no, there is nothing wrong with my having looked back on existing ANI reports to think about whether the current proposal would have helped them. In fact, I think it's an important step. And I just don't think ANI is as bad as a lot of people make out - I've been hearing it for more than ten years now, yet we still manage to get by with it. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But perfect is the enemy of good enough, and I think it's good enough. Oh, and for a moment there I wondered what the "periodic table of Kurds" was - I'm so glad we don't have one of those ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

          I guess it all boils down to whether we think the status quo is good enough. You say you've been hearing it for ten years, I say that's evidence of a problem. You say we get by, I say getting by isn't good enough. You say danger (or risk) in trying something, I say danger (or risk) in not trying anything. My starting point is that the flat number of active editors over the last ~10 years is evidence that the environment isn't attracting enough new editors, and if the number of active editors doesn't substantially grow (like exponentially), the project is doomed long-term (because as time moves forward, the number of things that need to be documented increases, plus there's the current backlog, meaning as time moves forward, Wikipedia's need for editor time increases, meaning the need for more editors increases, as each editor has a finite amount of time to donate, because editors are, unfortunately, mortal). So recruitment is an existential crisis for the project (if we don't recruit, the project fails), and that means a poor editing environment (one that suppresses recruitment) is an existential problem for the project (poor editing environment = project failure). In short, we must do something! :-)

          On the other hand, people look at the project after 20 years and think, "This is going pretty well, let's not mess with what works." But I think it hasn't been going that well, and any overarching praise of Wikipedia only comes because Wikipedia is judged against really low standards (social media, internet forums). "The last best place on the internet" is like being the last best dive bar. If you're trying to run a restaurant, being the best dive bar isn't really "good enough".

          I fear that too many on- and off-wiki are mistaking monopoly for success: just because Wikipedia is the top Google search result and it isn't totally full of lies like other websites, we think everything is working great the way it is. It isn't. In 20 years, we have nothing even close to an accurate, complete, neutral encyclopedia: I think less than 1% of 1% is "complete", meaning of publishable quality when compared with other academic works. And fixing that problem (increasing the pace of productivity) requires getting a lot more people to edit, and that requires making it a fun place to volunteer, and that requires a dispute resolution system that works well (poor dispute resolution = poor editing environment = project failure). If our recruitment numbers are flat, then that means our dispute resolution systems aren't working well, and that's why I hope you'll support trying something that will improve ANI (even if it's not this sectioned discussion proposal), and not accept the status quo as good enough. And thanks for reading this long rant if you did :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

          I agree that it's a fallacy to say "we must do something; this is something, so let's do this". But I'm also a fan of trying new things out, re-evaluating, adjusting, and trying again, which is the underlying spirit of a wiki (getting things done quickly). Though I'm not necessarily advocating that this particular proposal be trialed, I do think it's reasonable to look for low-cost ways to test out new approaches. Nothing's binding with a test; we can try something and see how well it works. isaacl (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I was thinking the same after reading recent multi-week walls-of-text between combatants editors, with nobody else getting a word in edgeways. Clerking to collapse long comments would also help. Fences&Windows 19:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- better structure would allow for better (and faster) outcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, structured discussion will separate the wheat from the chaff and allow better input from uninvolved editors and tidier closes.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose unless there's a mechanism for either party in any given dispute to opt out of the trial and revert to the current free-form-discussion approach, and it's made clear to all those involved that such a kill switch on the experiment exists and they won't be penalised should they choose to pull it. The more bureaucratic dispute resolution processes (Arbcom, AE etc) reward those who understand how to communicate in the language and style of Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy, and as such impart a significant systemic bias towards "regulars" who understand Wikipedia's byzantine unwritten rules on communication.

  As per many of those above, I disagree that the existing ANI is a broken process. Those claiming that it is are concentrating on the occasions where the existing process fails (understandable, as those are the long arguments that repeatedly light up the watchlist), while ignoring the fact that the majority of incidents brought to ANI are resolved quickly and uncontroversially.

  I don't have an objection to a brief experiment—or to a "Stage II ANI" of a more formal process to which those disputes ANI hasn't handled can be escalated without having to go to Arbcom—but it needs to be experimental, and to have a clear end date and a clear understanding of by what means, when that end date comes, we'll assess the success or failure of the experiment.

  I strongly disagree with Isaacl above that (to paraphrase) constantly fucking about with process for the sake of fucking about with process regardless of the disruption it causes to the real people behind those goofy usernames is somehow inherently admirable because it's the wiki spirit—if there's one thing the WMF's constant inept meddling has taught us, it's that "run fast and break things" might sound good in meetings but it invariably ends in a fiasco and the loss of editors when put into practice. ‑ Iridescent 07:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  I like the "Stage II ANI" idea, as an intermediate step between regular ANI and terminal ANI arbcom. The problem with an opt-out is that the editors who need this the most may be the most likely to opt out. (Like me, heh.)

  One way to try this is to allow admins to impose sectioning on repeat threads: you know, the ones that don't get resolved and then come back a week later. One the second or third trip, an admin can say "this needs to be sectioned" if they think the previous ones failed to resolve because of discussion problems. Periodic table and Kurds are two that come to mind where I think it would have benefitted on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. rounds.

  Another way to try this, and I think Rosguill suggested it at the pump, is an ANI/B page, which could be an optional alternative. Editors could choose to opt for the sectioned method, i.e. they can go to Stage II if they want to. We'd have to decide who gets to decide (filer? reported editor?) and what happens if participants disagree on the format. If all editors have to agree to try this out, we could try that as an experiment, but I think if all participants to an ANI dispute could agree on anything, then that is probably not a dispute that would need sectioned discussion anyway. Making it entirely optional might filter out the cases it would benefit the most. Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  So what you're suggesting isn't "destroy ANI and replace it with something else, and hope that by the time it becomes clear the new system is even more problematic it's become a fait accompli and it's too difficult to go back"—which seems to be what most supporters are supporting—but instead creating a user-conduct equivalent of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and allowing cases to be punted over there if they've been at ANI for a certain time without resolution but are too trivial to sent to Arbcom? I could get behind that, but I worry it would potentially suffer the same issues that the old Mediation Committee board had (and the existing Arbitration Enforcement board has), of rapidly becoming dominated by a small clique of those few admins who are interested, who in turn use it as a venue to push their personal grudges. We may despair of and get frustrated by the peanut gallery at ANI, but 1250 active watchers is an important safety mechanism, in that it makes it impossible to slip contentious things through, and presumably any new board would need to rebuild its audience from scratch unless we could persuade the devs to automatically add ANI 2.0 to the watchlist of everyone who's currently watching the existing board, or we actually made the threaded discussions a separate section of the existing ANI in the same way the Featured Article Removal Candidates are appended to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to ensure that people actually see them.

  (This isn't hyperbole. Wikipedia is absolutely full of obscure boards where the handful of friends who watch the page will decide on whatever they want a particular policy to be, and then say "well, there was a clear consensus at WP:PRQXGL, it's not my fault if you didn't notice the discussion" should anyone raise a concern. What we don't want is to recreate the old and rightfully deprecated WP:RFC/U star chamber, where people who'd made the mistake of being in a dispute with an editor who knew how to game Wikipedia's internal politics would be periodically dragged to be subjected to ritual abuse by the handful of self-appointed Civility Police who had the page watchlisted.) ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that creating too many noticeboards dilutes editor attention and can thus be counterproductive, particularly if it becomes yet another walled garden. For that reason, I support this proposal as a test run for the ANI page itself, without creating a new page. I think it should be tested as follows: (1) filing editors can opt to use the threaded discussion format when they file, or (2) uninvolved admin can impose it on appropriate threads. The purpose of the test would be to allow filing editors and patrolling admins to experiment a bit with this format and see if it helps any threads, and if so, which ones. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  To clarify, I don't support changing process arbitrarily, and have made plenty of comments about proposals asking that a problem be identified and the solution tailored to address it. (I previously summarized a commonly-used real world procedure for problem resolution where I touched on this.) I do support looking for opportunities to try things out in low-cost, easily reversible ways quickly, but of course the vast majority of proposals don't fit this category. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Given how broken the current system is I would welcome trying a different way. If it does not work tweaks can be made or even revert to the old system. There is little to no actual cost to trying it. I also do not find the arguments from old timers of well this is the way we have always done it or ermahgerd bureaucracy particularly compelling. Just because something has been broken for a long time and we just deal with it does not make it okay. It sounds more like stockholm syndrome than a health relationship. Next on the bureaucracy front, I think you would be hard pressed to say pretty much every aspect of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This is not the old wild west days of the pedia where there were still growing pains and no one knew what they were doing. We are well past that and while I am sympathetic to the "make Wikipedia great again" chants here, that ship has sailed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing and Iridescent. I also think there is an important distinction between the notions that "ANI is broken" and "ANI doesn't work in the way, or produce the sort of outcomes, I think it should". I don't see the former as correct, though I think it's possible that the latter could be part of a larger discussion of rethinking the overall approach to behavioral concerns on enwiki. A revision of ANI could be an output of such general rethinking, assuming a majority of the community agrees ANI should then be generally operating differently or producing different sorts of outcomes. Grandpallama (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional support as an alternative, but not required for every dispute. If an issue is closed as no consensus repeatedly, this might be the way to go prior to ArbCom. Certain TLDR issues/editors may have a report closed and required to reformat their report in this format if the closing admin/editor believes it to be beneficial. Although, if there is a place for the filing party's overview, the "accused" party shuld have the same place for their overview. Give it a trial run to work out the bugs. Clerking should be relatively leinient for now. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely - Support - I'm reminded of the hegemony of the asshole consensus that I read in an article titled The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta, and I'll quote the part I believe is relative to this discussion: The framing of the asshole consensus rests on a priori assumptions that this behavior is necessary for a successful project, and actually results in one. By their standards, it is successful, successful for them. When measured against the publicly stated mission, norms, and principles of the project — “be bold,” innovate, treat one another with civility — it is an utter failure. I don't understand why any proposal that will help maintain decorum would not be accepted. We cannot expect clerks to handle behavioral issues, or can we? We already know that aspersions and incivility can sometimes get out of control at the dramah boards, not to mention walls of text. It really needs to stop, and this a good place to start the stop. Word limits, no interaction between the filing party & the accused, establish a standard for proper decorum (like what was maintained at ARCA & ArbCom cases in the past), and enforce it. There needs to be a section devoted to uninvolved editor comments - of course, the opposition is going to be negative toward the accused. No comments should be accepted without diffs to support each and every claim. It will help put an end to WP:POV creep and potential agendas to rid an area of the oppostion - a high cost that is paid by NPOV. It's easy enough to establish limits/standards, and it truly needs to be done. It would also eliminate future WP:POV railroad filings which have occasionally resulted in actions taken against the wrong editor, inadvertent or otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 16:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The ease of use, the low overhead, and the minimum of bureaucracy all make ANI an effective venue as it stands. If individual cases need more structure, it can be given. But to require all that effort to just report an unusual vandal or an LTA, that's nuts. Before adminship, I almost never reported folks at AE or AN3 or the like because the reporting was confusing and took time. Reporting at ANI is super simple. Our one requirement at ANI, that you must inform the party you report, is already barely followed by newbies. I can't imagine new policies will see any higher rates of use than our simplest. Not to say that I wouldn't welcome some reform, a word limit perhaps would do the most. But AE/ArbCom style structure is unnecessary. All in all: this is a solution for a problem that does not exist and will only serve to grow our already bloated bureacracy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beyond My Ken, Iridescent, and Boing! said Zebedee, who hit on excellent arguments that I endorse, and don't feel the need to repeat. I'll also add my own bit here: the benefit of sections at AE and ArbCom is that in both of those forums there is a limited group of people whose opinions actually impact the outcome: at ArbCom the arbs and at AE uninvolved admins. At ANI involved editors are actually encouraged to comment and be a part of the decision, and this is a good thing. If someone in a niche topic area is causing a mess, we want the editors who they are impacting to have a voice.
  What this proposal would effectively do is send more cases to ArbCom because no one uninvolved is going to want to get involved in a binding resolution of long complex cases, and all the involved people will be relegated to the "ignore angry combatants" section that is all but sure to be skipped over unread when people are closing discussions.
  This format will work really to further ingrain established disruptive editors, especially those who are civil POV-pushers, by making it more difficult for the people who are actually impact by their actions to be taken seriously, and making it easier for their "uninvolved" friends to run interference for them and avoid sanctions that prevent disruption. ANI is not built on the premise that the people deciding the case should be uninvolved, and moving it to that direction would have a negative impact on fair outcomes by removing the voice of people impacted by an editors actions from active discussion.
  Tl;dr: outcomes being judged by only uninvolved editors is not the only way to get to fair outcomes, and in many of the cases that come to ANI removing involved editors from the decision making equation will result in less fair outcomes. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Very much, adding this would go and increase the overall complexity of discussions and also would cause an over-blowing information to be included, allowind discussions to be bogged down. This within my opinion is not a good choice, the diffs of a user's action should make it clear what they are doing, this type of proposal would only help to legitimize disruptive POV editors by allowing them to ethier disregard the context, or have POV editors have their friends come to their rescue. ANI is built on the idea of identifying disruptive content, behavior, or pages and trying to find a sustainable solution to it, this doesn't do that. Hope I made my points, Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Unbureaucratic approach

The intention of Rosguill's proposal was to “[add] more structure and [reduce] the amount of crosstalk”. As the case Rosguill cites shows, much of the former can be achieved without changing our rules – all it takes for the latter is a request by an admin for a given case, which worked pretty well in that example. The part that can not be achieved without changing the rules is the structure with headlines such as “Involved editors”. However, we don't have to expect that from the person reporting a case. We could simply achieve that by allowing admins and uninvolved editors in good standing to restructure the original request by adding whatever structure they see fit. So, the concerns of Boing and those who voted “per Boing” are addressed: We can leave out the bureaucracy and rule creep and keep it easy for a newcomer to file a report. At the same time, we can still achieve what Rosguill wanted. And best of all, we can even increase flexibility and thus reduce bureaucracy. ◅ Sebastian 12:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't address the Boing concerns. My concerns are about any form of bureaucractic structure, however or whenever imposed, or by whom. As soon as you start imposing a formal structure, at whatever point in the proceedings, you're putting an extra hurdle in the way of people who are not technically adept (and/or psychologically averse to having to do things in a formal way). This is just over-complicating things for, as I see it, no real benefit to those needing the help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

But the organizing method all Wikipedia dispute resolution goes from unstructured to more structured. It's done that way precisely because it is the only tried and true method for any hope of help. Perhaps the dystopian view of ANI that it is just there to put people into an endless bear-pit until they talk themselves out is utilitarian but it is not help, and every good reason to never go near it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a progression from unstructured to more structured, but I think we need that progression starting from unstructured and progressing to more structured forums as problems become more complex. And no, a structured organization is not the "only tried and true method for any hope of help" - the great majority of unstructured ANI reports that end in successful conclusions is the disproof of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Not disproof because you clearly mistook it. The method it to go from unstructured to structured, that's the only method, unstructured is within the method. If the only issues brought to ANI were simple, it would certainly be more pleasant but hardly in tune with reality. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what we're agreeing or disagreeing with here, so maybe I have mistaken your point. As I see it, we already have a progression from unstructured (ANI) all the way to highly structured (ArbCom/AE) as part of our problem solving process. So why change it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I might have got it. Are you addressing my "As soon as you start imposing a formal structure, at whatever point in the proceedings" comment? What I meant there was "at any point in the ANI proceedings" (specifically if anyone, like an admin, retractively applied formal structure to an ANI report that's already open) - I didn't mean we should not apply structure in cases that need to go beyond ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

the great majority of unstructured ANI reports that end in successful conclusions How are you defining success? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone involved gets blocked. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The reports are closed or archived with the problem no longer extant, or at least no longer urgent, due to admin or community action. Or with chronic or intractable problems concluded by community consensus or handed off to, say, Arbitration if that is applicable. Or any other way in which ANI reports are successfully concluded, as any observer can see on a daily basis. Or, of course, if everyone involved gets blocked ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and something else I consider a success is when a report peters out with nothing being done, because nothing needs to be done. I see several reports currently open that I suspect will end like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like the definition of waste not success, it obviously should have been shut down much earlier. More generally, Wiki-Arbitration process generally means dispute resolution has already failed. In the real world more intermediate steps might be called 'case management'. The easy is handled easy but as you get closer to failure, clearer structure seeks to avert failure. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. To me, "success" at ANI means the dispute is resolved, not just that the thread gets archived. There is no way a majority of disputes at ANI are resolved. Except when everyone gets blocked. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To add: perhaps if people were not so mystified about the kismet of unknowable, 'how does this end' of ANI, they might be less loquacious b/c less stressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree then. But people get into conflict all the time, and just letting them talk and letting it all peter out can be a valid method of conflict resolution. We will always get conflicts where there isn't a clear right or a clear wrong, and no obvious optimum solution (and that's true in all human community, not specific to here), but the parties just walking away from it can often be a pragmatic solution. And, even if you disagree and think a petered-out and archived report is a failure, nobody has made the case that that's caused by a lack of formal structure, or that the imposition of a formal structure to ANI reports will make those cases any better. In short, I don't think anyone has properly articulated the problem, or properly analysed problematic ANI reports to try to determine whether the lack of a formal structure might have played a part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing is in most cases, the parties don't walk away; they just keep arguing in the same places as they were before, and maybe new ones. I've rarely seen "letting them rant" result in tempers cooling at the incidents noticeboard, usually because the parties already failed at cooling down when they were ranting elsewhere. Taking a cue from real-world dispute resolution procedures, what is really needed is a moderator to manage discussion. (That of course carries its own set of pros and cons.) isaacl (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Knowing that there is an end in sight is one of the motivations behind the revisit respite concept I documented as part of my suggested content dispute resolution toolbox. In general, when a semi-binding conclusion is pending for a dispute, there is incentive to work towards a best-compromise solution. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Holy wall of text! On word count

As an active ANI admin (and also an AE one), I think one of the biggest challenges faced in the former has to do with posts (quite often OPs) that are of an inordinate length, and also are often (though not always) poorly-documented. Not to (but to) harp again on the notion of word count, but it (alongside reasonably-approved extensions, of course) perhaps ought to be revisited and examined more closely all on its own. There's a dynamic that happens when a wall of text OP, for example, can still be parsed by those involved, but everyone else is effectively shutout. Then, as the thread progresses further, it often becomes less and less accessible to the very outsiders whose review it is seeking. Anyway, nothing too concrete in mind yet, just throwing the general idea out there. El_C 14:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• El_C. here's a fine example of a Holly Wall. Sorry it's not concrete. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, a wall's a wall (unless it's also a fence, somehow...?). Anyway, you wouldn't believe how many "Happy hollidays" I've sent through the years. One of those words that always trips me, it seems.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 16:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I really don’t think wall-of-text OPs are the ones that give ANI its bad rap though. The true wall of text threads usually just get ignored and archived without action. Or OP gets told to condense it, OP doesn’t, and then nothing happens. Where weird stuff happens is when there’s a serious and obvious experience differential between adversarial parties, such as the wall of text scenario but the adversarial party comes back with something concise and actionable, calls for a BOOMERANG, and things progress as we know them to progress.
  Weirdly, at least in my experience, the most notable cases are those where the ANI regulars (those derided as a peanut gallery) look through the case more deeply and suddenly reverse course—maybe it turns out the more experienced person was being a jerk the whole time and baited the OP into doing whatever he did. I’ve seen more than one thread where the initial reaction of the “peanut gallery” was to endorse the experienced editor, only for one of that group to suddenly post a counterargument with diffs that causes a total reversal of course.
  I think there’s room for a more uniform approach to what I’ll call “formal objections”—responses to things like unintelligible complaints, complaints that don’t clearly ask for admin intervention, and failure to notify in the correct manner—but I do think this cuts against more formal front-end constraints. Like look at the notification requirement. That’s not going anywhere of course, but look at how often it’s used to browbeat an OP and make the entire process both less friendly and less likely to reach a conclusion on the merits. Hell, I chewed out an OP for failure to notify a week or so ago in a manner that, in retrospect, very well could’ve ended in the thread getting forgotten about. I think that sort of thing is where the bad reputation really comes from. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that is an important facet, though I'm unsure what effective means there are to improve it, in-practice. I'm open-minded, though. But I'll admit that maybe I'm a bit AE slanted with my above, like for example with this AN thread from earlier in the month that was pretty much left to its own devices, except for the involved in-the-know. El_C 15:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Those megathreads are the worst. To be honest it feels like a lot of those threads are attempting to do what WP:RFC/U used to do (but was never really effective in doing). I feel that the structural proposals above are looking for a way to achieve what RFC/U was intended to do as well.

I think if we want to address megathreads, we should look for a way of differentiating between regular threads and "endless megathreads". It could be very simple to do so. For instance, a thread that hasn't been archived after 96 hours, or a thread with a total substantive wordcount above 10,000 words. These are just example categorizations; they can and should be refined. My purpose in suggesting them is only to start the conversation about megathreads rather than solicit specific means of detecting problem threads.

But that of course begs the question, assuming we find a way to identify problem megathreads, what (if anything) do we do to address them? My honest opinion is that many of those cases should go to arbitration for structure. In the old days, the Committee handled relatively small-scale disputes involving pairs of editors all the time. It's what they should be doing instead of supervising topic areas covering millions of articles. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, all good points, to be sure. But my concern with greatly increasing the frequency of referral to Committee actions is that those are likely to have the effect of simply driving the arbitrators to the point of exhaustion. El_C 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, if the community decides that it hasn't actually been resolves some conflicts that need resolving that's what ArbCom is for. However, ArbCom is a very costly process in the sense that you have a dozen or so arbs focused on the dispute. And so it would be my hope that for conflicts involving a pair of editors that the community could find some effective means of dispute resolution, even if it's not ANI in its current form. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is a very costly process in the sense that you have a dozen or so arbs focused on the dispute From my perspective, that's a problem with the Committee and not ANI, and should be addressed through reform of the Committee if necessary. I also think people's expectations of the complexity of Committee proceedings are colored by just how ridiculously selective they have become with case requests, leading to cases generally amassing years of evidence from a half dozen or a dozen stakeholders and other regulars. It doesn't have to be this way, and I believe the Committee should be routinely taking less complex cases.

To put it differently, let's look at conflicts on a continuum, ranging from truly routine, minor disagreements to multi-year, multi-party intractable disputes. Now let's overlay different dispute resolution processes onto that continuum. At the very bottom, we have article and user talk pages. Above that might be forum-like venues along the lines of the Teahouse, helpdesk, requests for editor assistance. Past that are more specialized, topical noticeboards like WP:BLPN. Above those tend to be WP:ANI and (for certain topic areas) WP:AE. And above that, there's a big gap, until you hit the bottom level of case that the Committee is willing to take. The aim of the discussion here, in part, is to address that gap—cases that are too complex for ANI to handle effectively but not complex enough for the Committee to accept. And much of the discussion has focused on changing ANI to cover that gap better. And there's something to be said for improving ANI, but I don't think it's reasonably possible for it to fully cover that gap. Rather, the Committee should be doing more work to bridge the gap.

Seriously, Committee cases don't need to be that hard or involved. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I really want to highlight this part of El_C's comment: There's a dynamic that happens when a wall of text OP, for example, can still be parsed by those involved, but everyone else is effectively shutout. This causes a lot of tangential problems that weren't obvious until I started trying to action walls-of-text-complaints at ANI. I definitely agree with Boing! said Zebedee above that just letting people vent can be helpful sometimes, but bludgeoning discussions really chills intervention. This allows problematic but not egregious conduct to usually go unresolved because one side essentially filibusters until we get a no consensus outcome. The danger I've run into is when there's actually a rough consensus among all that noise, but the number of participants is small. The restriction is appealed on the basis that it should have been a no consensus result or that the closer prejudiced the editor by ignoring the walls of text. It's hit or miss on whether it actually gets overturned, but by creating new conflicts we really wind up kicking the can when we should have been putting it in the bin (see also meatball:ConflictCycle and the more useful meatball:ConflictResolution). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's one of the challenges for collaborative, online decisions-making I've written about: in a face-to-face conversation, participants would use interruptions and other cues to keep one person from dominating conversation and to help more reticent participants be heard. Online communities benefit from having moderators manage discussions to mitigate these issues. I appreciate there are shortcomings to having moderators, but the cost is having meandering conversations that forestall decision-making. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, moderators would have to be admins, wouldn't they, and we've already highlighted the problem that admin participation here is less than it might be. In any case, a certain amount of self-moderation is already in effect. I'm thinking of hatting irrelevant asides, urging participants to return to the initial point, creating new sub-sections to either deal with ancillary issues which have arisen or to refocus on the main thrust of the discussion and so on. To a certain extent, "meandering" is a positive thing, as it allows all aspects of a subject to be examined, including the behavior of the OP or other editors involved in a dispute. These issues don't arise so much at AE, because the focus is much tighter: the reported editor and the evidence of their supposed violations. If discussions get sidetracked into the behavior of another editor, the usual response will be to suggest another report be filed. That's not so much the case at ANI, where traditionally the behavior of all participants is examined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. In fact, moderation already happens: We get threads closed and sometimes collapsed, and warring over those things will easily net a block. The problem is that bottom-level civility moderation just isn't happening enough. But as you say, that has to be backed up with an admin at some level. Creating a new clerk position is... really not going to fix things. It might attract hat collectors, and as such might create a new stepping stone either to adminship or to a Committee seat, but I really don't see formalized moderator/clerk positions doing anything when what is claimed to be happening is insufficient participation.

  And as usual, BMK, you hit it right on the head. That ANI threads drift about and investigate everybody isn't a bug, it's a feature. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, moderators don't have to be admins; they just have to be someone who the participants are willing to follow. (The libertarian roots of the Wikipedia community works against this.) Moderators are capable of prompting participants to explore all aspects of a situation while also keeping them on track. This saves everyone time and reduces their cognitive effort, which thus increases the likelihood that a resolution can be reached. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Moderators are capable of prompting participants to explore all aspects of a situation while also keeping them on track. That’s not a moderator, that’s a mediator. Or an arbitrator, if this moderator is also tasked with closing discussions. I’d rather see the Committee deal with cases that require this sort of handholding than creating a parallel system. Forcing this restructuring on ANI reminds me of the efforts from years ago to expand AFD to cover non-deletion situations because of how much traffic AFD had. These proposals were all rightly defeated because they were seen for what they really were: Attempts to have a system nobody wanted to participate in on its own merits to coattail-ride on a system that many people already participated in. Let’s be clear: ANI’s popularity isn’t a resource that can be redirected elsewhere. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Because "mediator" on Wikipedia tends to be associated with the formal mediation process, I chose to use the term "moderator" in the sense of what you would see in real world discussion panels: someone who manages and guides the discussion. (Also, mediation occurs between the disputing parties, whereas discussions at the incidents noticeboard include uninvolved parties.) The English Wikipedia arbitration process doesn't really guide discussion; it leaves everyone to raise the points they wish in a somewhat structured manner. I appreciate that amongst those who like to discuss these matters, there hasn't been much interest in having someone guide and manage discussion, which leads to the challenges I described with unmoderated online discussions. isaacl (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this the right venue?

Although this discussion has been interesting and informative, I do not think that AN is frequented by a sufficient percentage of the community to justify making a major change in an essential community dispute resolution process - ANI -- based on a discussion here. I suggest that this discussion be closed and either re-opened or ported over to WP:Centralized discussions as a formal RfC to allow wider community involvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

...so I think it's appropriate to bring it here for a bit more input before making a formal proposal at the village pump, wrote the OP. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll just point out that AN has both more watchers and more page views than any of the Village Pumps. Bigger picture, I agree this was intended to be a discussion prior to any formal proposal which I would agree with BMK should be advertised through CENT. So I would hope whatever happens next addresses some of the concerns raised here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah this should've gotten stuck in an informal VP thread with a T:CENT listing, and maybe a notice of discussion posted here (similar to how the Committee advertises important announcements here). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  At a discussion about conduct resolution systems at the VP idea lab, ... is how the OP starts. It doesn't make sense to me that after the informal VP thread, there should be another informal VP thread. I suggested to Ros at the VP thread that input be sought at the administrator's noticeboard about Ros's idea for the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents sub-page. So as explained in the OP, the path we're on is: informal VP -> admin input -> formal proposal, and we're at the bolded middle part right now. I can't imagine why this would be the wrong venue for this step, and I find the first paragraph of the OP to be exceedingly clear about this. Of course I agree with BMK and BK that any formal proposal should be listed at CENT. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  It should've stayed where it was is my point. A notice could've been posted here. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  If the point was to get more input on it, I think that's happened, and things can move on to the next formal step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin-overturned RfC closure at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

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

---

Hello,

I wanted to seek a 3rd party admin for input on a matter in regards to another admin (User:El C) unilaterally overturning an RfC close I made. Following the close, there were discussions regarding it here and below is a condensed summary from my perspective:

El C had expressed their unfavorability towards my non-admin closure, and in general, to another editor, ProcrastinatingReader, and particularly noted my being relatively new to Wikipedia. In a related post-closure discussion under the RfC, ProcrastinatingReader had chimed in on a contentious debate of the meaning of the RfC by explaining the closure challenge process (1). Not having any real issue with someone challenging my close, as I believed that actually would have been more beneficial to the process than taking my assessment at face value, I pinged both El C and ProcrastinatingReader that they should feel free to do so. In return El C began discussing my lack of experience (which is a valid point), but then began discussing the remedy in a pompous sort of manner, making a declaration of authorizing others to overturn and re-close as they see fit (2). Confused, I asked for justification on why my close was not valid beyond just my account age and edit count, citing this policy. He had already reverted my close, re-opening the RfC himself at this point (3). In response, I got more "you're too young" styled remarks regarding how few talk page messages I've received and an argument that normal rules do not apply because of discretionary sanctions on the topic of American politics, as well as an odd WP:Wikilawyering accusation (4). Eventually ProcrastinatingReader ended up re-closing it, despite prior discussion of starting normal closure challenge process.

Throughout this, El C was unable to specifically point to why my close was biased, wrong, insufficient, etc. that warranted it to be overturned immediately and by circumventing the typical challenge process, only that he vaguely disagreed with my estimation of rough consensus (despite having admitted to not having the time to closely review the discussion comments himself).

All-in-all this left a bad taste in my mouth coming from an admin, even if my inexperience was a valid concern. I am not seeking any specific action here, I don't seek to un-overturn an overturned closure. I only want to get input from uninvolved admins (and experienced non-admins as well) and advice regarding the incident for better information on relevant procedures, guidelines, standards, etc.

Note: this request isn't to do with the actual content of the RfC or the merit of my original formal close, only insofar as it relates to the actions of, and discussions leading up to, overturning it.

Thanks in advance,
^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 11:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: In the mentioned talk page, El C has threatened logging sanctions against me for not complying with his "instructions" and supposedly "misusing" the talk page by presumably challenging his decisions (5). He also removed the entire above ANI message (6) (which I just reverted 7) because he asked me to go to a different venue. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Update2: This is the 3rd time I'm reposting this ANI message. I tried to add the above update but the section was deleted by El C again before I could publish (8). Discussion between him and I on my talk page may be relevant (including some bad faith accusations of being a sock and vague threats of investigation[?]). ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As an editor with less than six months experience and five hundred edits, you shouldn't have been closed a major discussion like that. A couple of other experienced editors expressed concern about the close, and the fact that you subsequently cited sources to back up your close suggests it was a supervote (you should not be making closes based on your own knowledge, only on the opinions given in the discussion). Re-opening it seems reasonable to me. Number 57 12:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

These distortions and personal attacks from this user with only ~300 edits are totally suspect. Their RfC closure was deeply flawed, as both PR and myself have attempted to convey to them, on multiple occasions. But a tendentious timesink followed nonetheless, with unresponsive, evasive argumentation. I've been trying to bring a semblance of order to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol for a while now. Users like Hidden Lemon bring about much disorder, unfortunately. Anyway, I've instructed them to challenge my use of WP:ACDS to overturn their closure (regardless of whether they wish to see it reinstated or for whatever reason) at WP:ARCA, but they want to go on and on in a Wikipedia:Dramaboard sort of way. Why? Who knows. El_C 12:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Lemon, I also agree that only very experienced editors or administrators should attempt to close long and contentious discussions like this one, and you are not among those. Sandstein 13:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There appear to be several issues here. Firstly, Hidden Lemon should not have closed the RfC, but I think even he recognises that now. Secondly, new users shouldn't run straight for admin areas as they'll generally end up causing more problems than they solve - although in this case I think it was because Hidden Lemon was slapped with an AfD on one of his creations so he "learned the ropes" out of necessity. Thirdly, I think it would be best if you just dialled it back a bit El C, as from an outsider's point of view, it looks like you have it in for him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit weirded out, but time well spent...? As a "strange guy" who acts in a "a pompous sort of manner," guess I'll just see y'all in the next one. El_C 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Ritchie333, but I didn’t understand how the AfD you brought up was related to your second point. Could you elaborate? ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Lemon, Well, most users come here because they want to write something for the encyclopedia, or otherwise improve an article. It's only later, if at all, that they discover the "back end" side of things . In my case, several off-wiki friends complained about articles they were interested in being deleted, so I sought out if I could do something about it. So, that's a logical explanation why you're interested in ANI, when most genuine new users (as opposed to banned users coming back as a sockpuppet and carrying on as if nothing happened) just stay in mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, that sort of explains the odd assumptions regarding my motivations El C seemed to make. Appreciate it, Ritchie333, thanks. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There are few articles which could come close to being as controversial as 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, and those that are as controversial generally are also under some form of discretionary sanctions like anything related to The Balkans. I agree with the others that you really should not be thrusting yourself into what is essentially an arbiter's role in a discussion area as highly sensitive as this one. This is a highly visible area of Wikipedia, and one where mistakes are not easily forgivable. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hidden Lemon: Could you provide diffs with your statement, so that way your allegations could be evaluated properly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

MJL I just added them to my original statement, is there anything in particular you were wanting to look at that I missed? Thanks! ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hidden Lemon I haven't reviewed this in detail, but I'll make some general comments. We try exceptionally hard to have as little bureaucracy as possible here. Some decisions, however, are more complicated and/or controversial than others and we reserve those kinds of decisions for our more experienced users. For sure, anything involving 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is going to peg the controversy meter. These are the sorts of areas where even highly experienced admins fear to tread, and sometimes get closed by a panel of three admins, to ensure not just that process is followed, but to eliminate any appearance of bias. You should review WP:NAC. While I certainly appreciate that you want to help out with administrative tasks, this was not the place for somebody with your level of experience to get their feet wet. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Requesting RfC be re-closed

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

---

An RfC 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 re-closed.

• The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([62][63]) or MOS:WEASEL ([64]). 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 ([65][66]) 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").

• • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([67][68]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([69][70]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).

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.") Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below. Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..." Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE." Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS" @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous) Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE" Vice regent, said "Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views".

What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says, Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away. 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)

Changing to request to re-close.VR _talk 19:41, 23 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)

• 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-open Re-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)

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:

• "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."

• "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."

  ”

• "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."

• "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."

• "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."

• "“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."

• "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[71]). 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)

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)

• When there's no consensus between two options, but there is a consensus that the article needs to change, and one option is plainly stronger / more extreme than the other but both are broadly a change in the same direction, I feel the correct thing for a closer to do is to close with a weak consensus towards the less drastic choice unless the people arguing for the stronger one specifically rejected it as unacceptable, with the suggestion of further discussion and maybe another RFC if necessary. If people are arguing over "reduce to 80 words" vs. "reduce to 160 words" on a 800-word section, and there plainly isn't sufficient consensus for either due to people supporting doing nothing but the two collectively have a clear majority, I feel it makes more sense to say "well, the people arguing for 80 words would clearly prefer reducing it to 160 words over doing nothing, so if their primary choice plainly doesn't have a strong enough consensus then they can be counted as that for the purpose of what to do in the immediate sense even if further refinement and discussion is plainly necessary." --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2021 (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[72][73] by those who opposed SB version.VR _talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome — what? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.

With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.

So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your "sorry" (which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago: the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.

With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.

If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.

I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.

But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your "Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources?" (I also believe this should be taken really more seriously now). --Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:

• ”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”

• "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.

• "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."

• "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."

• "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."

The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([74][75]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.VR _talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR _talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent in response to your poins:

1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:

"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and 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.”

International Policy Digest

"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... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."

National Interest

"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. 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."

Arab News

All three sources support "while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult", so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.

2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to what you said, this version is truely violating NPOV (explained mutliple times). Anyway, this long wall of text does not discredit the important points raised by experienced users here. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way, "(one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented". LOL! Is it what you understand from NPOV? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have asked the discussion get closed. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Since the Arab News was used as a source for the text proposed in this RfC, users might be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arab_News_reliable_on_the_People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran?.VR _talk 14:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• There are two important discussions regarding the super-trim RFCs (like the one that is the topic of debate here). You can find them "New restriction proposal" and "Confused". The OP of the RFC has promised to avoid opening such super trim discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Users that know the Wikipedia system using that ability to contort pages.

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

---

I would like review into AleatoryPonderings and Tartan357 and their contributions to the Chad Wolf page, prior admin issues, and Talks.

That their ability and bias was used to present loaded questions in previous talks, fast track, and ended in protecting confusion; getting it in with little time until known administration changes. But When the topic of Chad Wolfs change in position, and needed change in opening sentence, was brought up by me they showed biased support away from the spirit of useful information while time constraint was cited as the reason NOT to this time. The Chad Wolf page continues to read that he is still in charge of DHS. ..Unless you follow an unintuitive double negative in the first sentence that needs 5 more sentences and a nest of commas to try to explain; with the info box adding more confusion because the title that was confirmed certain is placed below one that was never legally held...and neither mention POSITION as previously held and end date of the initial position comes at the end of the confusing paragraph? :::This will be my last time on this site for a long time. While they can argue that they followed all known procedures I place this post calling the actions of AleatoryPonderings and Tartan357 actions lawful evil in alignment as they avoid clarity and precedents set by other cabinet positions (Ratcliff, sessions, Vought et al). Would admin, or someone that knows how the weird backside of this site runs, please bring these errors higher if you think it needs it. Farewell. 2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This will be my last time on this site for a long time So you've lobbed a grenade and are running away? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is hilarious. ITS NOT FAIR, IT SHOULD WORK Drmies (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The article appears to be correct now, but that is not going to stop an angry IP editor from flouncing away in protest. If they actually do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone ought to do something about it.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• While I expected my character to be judged, I didn't expect it to be the only thing mentioned on a formal request to review admin, and those knowledgeable, using their authority one way for what they like, and another way to protect confusion. :I'm guessing you all are admin, or powerusers, if you are here... I expected better. Not this silly attack on my character. To the above mentioning me leaving (lobing grenades) I work in mortuary affairs and don't have time, haven't kissed the correct wiki admins butts, and don't have the energy to comment on all of your biased use of skills and obvious need to ridicule me for seeking what I think is just a review into their content and character. May any and all, including higher admin, please take note of those only providing humiliation and exclusion in THIS talk about if someone is using OTHER talks incorrectly. I would like to include all above users in a review of their character and what attempts at humiliation, exclusion, misdirection, and deflection they directed at me, a new user, in this talk. 2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you think coming to the noticeboard and laying out accusations against the conduct of another editor means your conduct won't be just as scrutinized, with the potential that the user who is a problem can be determined to be you, I have some bad news for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • Agreed. "Responders: Investigate fully" as provided by the deflection link of Bushranger above. man you all are exhausting. Gladly my kid has time to help me with this crap so this didn't really turning into the grenade also hastily and falsely mentioned by a Bushranger above... Twice now Bushranger has been rash, hasty, exclusive, and aggressive in attacking review of admin and powerusers creation of bias in talk pages.... interesting.2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, you are acting like a bull in a china shop. We've all seen that a thousand times before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

9 comments now..? Not one mention of the original sentence except to laugh at or place blame and scare tactics towards me. I am an IP glass figurine.. wondering why blacksmiths are only using their hammers in a biased way to protect confusion and each other. Now I think this very talk and the above comments has proved my point. "Responders: Investigate fully" as provided in Bushrangers link above will help with any further response, since they are all the same so far. Take care.2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You might want to consider that if they're "all the same so far", perhaps that is because the problem is you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Admins might want to consider that this IP really doesn't have a temperament suited to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Still no mention of the original topic.2605:AD80:40:472:B437:35D4:24A1:CAB0 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• OP, it's probz because you didnt link the WP:DIFFs. Soz but there's a reason they call AN/I the WP:CESSPIT (and it's not because everyone is nice there/here) jp×g 17:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willard Keith

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

---

Expertwikiguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have just reversed what seems to me to be a particularly egregious close of discussion. All these Navy Cross/ship-naming discussions are proving to be heavily disputed, and need careful closure. At any rate, as an involved party both the original close and my revert need review. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yikes! Good revert. I have deep concerns about that user's involvement in any other deletion discussions. El_C 14:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had to escalate this to AN/I as it turns out this has been an ongoing problem about which s number of comaplints have been left on the suer's talk page. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've undone that. ANI is not an "escalation" and splitting a discussion should be avoided. El_C 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mangoe, User has demonstrated that they do not have the necessary competence to close or even relist deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They also had to be reverted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Eversole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilgal, Kentucky is a classic WP:RELISTBIAS example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wofai Fada is more relist bias, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cambridge Working Group is WP:BADNAC #2 as too close for NAC. There's a few keep closes that would be better off as no-consensuses, but as the effect is same, that's not horrible. Still, there's too high of an error rate here, especially for NACs. I'll leave a note on their talk page asking them to kindly refrain from closing/relisting AFDs. Hog Farm _Talk 15:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support a TBAN from relisting/closing and if you hadn't already left this friendly note would be proposing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: - I'm not sure that the message really did much good, as the resulting discussion at their talk page suggests. Before seeing this comment, I'd replied to their response that the closures/relists were justified with a warning that poorly dabbling in AFD NACs has a tendency to lead to ANI and topic bans. If this closing behavior continues, I think the TBAN discussion would be more than justified here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am the user in question that is being discussed here. I am sorry if I made any errors. I had followed correct closure procedures, except I did make 1 or 2 errors, instead of choosing "No Consensus," I choose "KEEP," but as another editor says the outcome is the same. I was not aware that the military AFD's are a sensitive issue, so I will refrain from future closures. In addition, I have not participated in any closures with outcome of Delete or Merge or Redirect as the policies state non-admins should stay away from Deletes. I have been doing edits for 7 years and more heavily in past 2-years, so I consider myself experienced enough. There is obviously a learning process for everything and errors can be made occasionally even by most experienced editors or admins. Finally, I feel most the issues here are subjective and can be interpreted in different ways by different editors/admins. i.e. "Was the closure done right or not" may be a question of how you felt about the subject deserving a keep or delete, so some may feel it was right and some may feel it was not. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that AFD's are really backlogged as someone mention on this page before. I was trying to help out. I am sure my help would be appreciated. There are many AFD's passed the 7 day deadline that have not been closed or relisted. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A backlog is better than a bad close. Special:Permalink/1004983342 or Special:Permalink/1004982984 alone shows you should refrain from closing AfDs for the time being. This is exactly why I think Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Proposal: Follow example of TfD and non-admins to "close" some "delete" outcomes is a bad idea for AfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Expertwikiguy, your close clearly demonstrates that you are not even remotely experienced enough to be closing discussions, something which your comments above do nothing to assuage. It's way, way too terse, not to mention that it's about as WP:VOTE-y as I've ever seen a discussion closure, pretty much ever. Here it is, in full: the result was keep. 9 Keep, 6 Redirect, 3 Deletes, Winner is KEEP (diff). El_C 02:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok I get your point, it's not just about the counts, but that doesn't mean I didn't read the comments and arguments made. I would also like to invite these editors involved in voting of these pages to comment, if my closures were fair and vote below: user:Jackattack1597, user:ERcheck,user:malo,user:Thewolfchild, user:Looper5920, user:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d, user:FieldMarine, user:Toddst1, user:Andrew_Davidson, user:PamD, user:Dream Focus, user:Geo_Swan, User:7&6=thirteen. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing is not something we do on Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Mangoe that these AFD need to be evaluated carefully.

That is one reason why the handful of individuals behind this recent flood of AFD should have throttled themselves back to maybe nominating just one per day.

I'd already participated in half a dozen of these, before one of the handful of individuals behind this recent flood let slip that there had been a recent AFD listing dozens of these articles, which was closed as keep with a closing comment that each article should be nominated individually. WP:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen

I think each of the subsequent individual nominations should have explicitly mentioned the earlier keep closure of that single massive mass deletion.

I think when the closure of a single massive mass deletion said mass deletion was inappropriate, individuals who made followup individual AFD, or AFD of smaller focussed AFD of more carefully grouped smaller groups of articles, had a very strong obligation to fully, effectively and meaningfully complied with WP:BEFORE. Sadly, I have to report that at least one of the individuals behind this flood of AFD totally failed to comply with BEFORE. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Geo Swan You say "One of the handful of individuals behind this recent flood let slip" as if this was some big secret. You must have been one of the few Users at the later individual AFDs who wasn't aware of it as many of the Keep !votes at the mass deletion turned out to !vote Keep at the individual AFDs. What difference would it have made/make if the mass deletion was explicitly mentioned on the individual AFDs? The mass deletion was a procedural keep "without prejudice for renomination". Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Barkeep49 referred to an AFD backlog, below, when they first proposed a topic ban against Expertwikiguy. I think it must be recognized that the reason why there is a backlog is that Mztourist, the person who initiated this discussion, and one or two close associates, flooded us with an unmanageable number of AFD. This seemed to me to be a serious lapse from WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mztourist's lapses merit close examination, possible admonishment. I would not be ready to endorse a topic ban on him or her, at this point, and I oppose a topic ban on Expertwikiguy, for similar reasons. Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Geo Swan about the mass-listing of the military/war hero BLPs; there is a questionable motive behind it and the repeated badgering of "keep" !voters underlines that. Perhaps AfD wouldn't be so troubled of there was more scrutiny on users mass-dumping pointy entries into it, and/or a strengthening of the AfD guidelines. jmho - wolf 19:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Geo Swan you say I "initiated this discussion"? I didn't initiate this ANI. Nor have I "flooded [you] with an unmanageable number of AFD". You should check your facts before making such accusations. Similarly Thewolfchild the accusation of badgering of Keep !voters is countered by the poor sourcing of the pages being nominated for deletion and arguments such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability being overwhelmingly rejected. Also in another recent close the Admin stated that they tended to favor the !votes made after a page had been updated, meaning that earlier comments were being discounted. Anyway these comments are just an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, an inexperienced User making bad close decisions at AFD, but that doesn't seem to bother you Geo Swan.Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment wasn't intended to insult or upset you. The fact is you did post comments to several editors that posted "keep" !votes, disputing their comments. There's really no need for that at AfD, it's up to the closing admin to assess each !vote and determine how much weight it should be given. A string of back-and-forth replies aren't necessary and just drag on the proposal. jmho - wolf 04:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
        • AFD is a discussion. Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
          • • Sure, ok. Keep on truckin' ;) - wolf 10:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Expertwikiguy (talk · contribs) is subject to an indefinite topic ban from closing or relisting deletion (XfD) discussions.

• Support as proposer. I was already there based on previous closes and the responses this editor had given in the past when asked about their closes. However, I am all for both friendly and direct words being tried. And yet we have seen those fail (one of them in this very thread). I agree that we need help with the AfD backlog, but that would ideally be some more admins (including me) pitching in; bad closing is not the right kind of help. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the two links in my comment above which are very concerning closes, along with other recent closes. Closer does not appear to want to back away from AfD closing voluntarily (see their talk). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support however well-intentioned the User may be, they lack the competence to close and relist AFDs which just creates more problems on contentious AFDs. The User hasn't been willing to acknowledge the problem and so a ban is necessary. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Per 9 Keep, 6 Redirect, 3 Deletes, Winner is KEEP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think this is extreme and not likely that I will make such mistakes again after reading all the comments. "indefinite" is really extreme. Maybe give me one month "hold" until I have time to study and learn more about it.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent". In can, in fact, mean less than a month, although that is unlikely in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose An indefinite ban seems excessive and unnecessary. The numerous nominations of hundreds of war heroes have proved to be a hornet's nest – a disruptive battleground when it is so apparent that there are more sensible alternatives. Even experienced admins such as Ritchie333 are being badgered about such closes – see John R. Craig, for example. Expertwikiguy acted in in good faith and now seems to understand that their help is not always appreciated. Per WP:ROPE, they should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that this "word to the wise" is sufficient. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what the subject is, though - if you count votes, you get closes wrong. Although in at least one of these cases, he managed to even count them wrongly. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

which one is that? Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

[76] you said "6 Keeps, 4 Redirect, No Deletes. I also Agree to Keep". The !votes were nom's delete, 3 Redirects, 2 Merge, 1 Keep/Merge and 5 Keep (excluding you who has no !vote as closer) Mztourist (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Lost me at Keep is basically the same as No Consensus. Good faith attempt but with only ~1,250 edits (no articles created), limited experience at AfD [77] (no AfD nominations), and these example closes, this editor should not be closing.

Because I think everything they did was in good faith, if Expertwikiguy would state they will voluntarily abstain indefinitely from closing AfDs, I would switch to Oppose as I would see no prevenative use, and there is no need to give a bad mark to a good faith editor unless it is really necessary. I hope they respond.  // Timothy :: talk  13:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to voluntarily stop doing this myself for a while (maybe 2 months), so just to monitor others doing it and learn more.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm reserving judgement for a few days, but I do think he needs to step away from doing closes/relists at least for a while. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Based on the ongoing discussions on his talk page, I've come to a decision.; see below. Mangoe (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to voluntarily stop doing this myself for a while (maybe 2 months), so just to monitor others doing it and learn more.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Leaning oppose if they promise to not perform closures/relists anymore, but if they keep up doing them when there's clearly consensus they shouldn't be at this time, then I would support. I believe they're acting in good faith, and since they seem to have stopped closing/relisting after my request, I see no reason to give them a TBAN if they're willing to stop. Hog Farm _Talk 17:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support - "weak" because the proposal is "indefinite" (it should be six months), "support" because of the terrible judgement in the cited close and "I am willing to voluntarily stop doing this myself for a while (maybe 2 months)" isn't helping. I would switch to "oppose" if Expertwikiguy gives a firm commitment to not close AfDs for a minimum of 6 months, but in that time, also regularly contributes to AfD to gain experience, should he want to try his hand at it again. If he can demonstrate a potential for improvement, he should be given another chance. - wolf 19:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Why should it be six months? On the whole NAC at AfD is hard to do right and often causes issues, something I learned by observing the many poorly done NAC well before I became an admin. So if someone has shown a lack of judgement about whether or not they are qualified to do these closes, a lack of judgement about how to respond when concerns are brought forward on their talk page, and a stubborness about stopping when brought forward to AN, only promising to do "maybe 2 months" (so maybe it would be less) after a TBAN gets traction, shows, to me, the wisdom of indefinite, which we know does not mean permanent. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  I think you just answered you're own question. - wolf 03:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Why, given those facts, is six months more appropriate, in your mind, than indefinite? I don't want to beat up the user again so I won't repeat why I find indefinite compelling but I could perhaps be wrong and it should be a set time instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  My reply was in response to your commemt; "...indefinite, which we know does not mean permanent.". - *Speaking generally* if it's a given that these "indefinite" terms are actually finite, then why not start with that? IMO, all first time bans should have a set term, based on AGF alone (say 3, 6 or 12 months, depending on severity). - *Speaking for "Expertwikiguy"* (who's going to be banned), it's clear that he needs to be barred from AfD to protect that project. Further, it's become clear that he doesn't seem to grasp what people are collectively telling him, so perhaps there's a CIR issue, I dunno. I stand by my support of your proposal. I posted additional comments to his tp that addess how I believe he might resume nac at AfD, at some point (when and if). Cheers. - wolf 10:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - closures are supposed to save us time, not cost us more time. Based on their responses, this editor is not "getting it"; their responses read as if they have an entitlement to close, as if their right-to-close is being infringed upon. A tban seems necessary to prevent further timesink and indefinite (which would require an appeal to lift rather than just the passage of time) is the right duration here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Their activities are becoming disruptive & they clearly do not know what they are doing, rushing into areas where even admins with great experience tread with extreme caution. They re-listed an AFD & said “well because I feel the subject of the article is notable” despite the article being on the verge of a delete. When I confronted them about that they became hostile & said & I quote “I have been an editor longer than you have” This is by far the most disruptive thing I’ve seen this year. Celestina007 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In this particular case I have provided details on my talk page why I felt a Relist was the best option. The subject possibly met WP:MUSICBIO and I felt the AFD required more time to be considered. In addition, Celestina007 was the nominator of this and another page that I relisted, so I feel in his opinion the page should be deleted. He is obviously biased. I invite others to review my reasons in my talk page and see if a relist was just.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW, this particular case demonstrates that I am not just basing my decisions on counts and I am also reading the comments and evaluating the page. On one hand there are editors attacking me saying I basing my judgment just on counts on another we have this editor saying based on the counts it should have been deleted, so here is proof that I am not just basing my judgments on counts. I simply didn't express my opinions of my decisions clearly and that was my mistake. At the end it seems to me AFD closing can be conversional in nature no matter who does it, and if we look at any editor or admin doing this, I am sure we will find decisions that we feel were not correct. I just happened to be making some mistakes because I am new, which is why I am under the microscope. However, it is unlikely I will make the same mistakes again. But anyway whatever decision is made I am fine with it.Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Except you don't just relist something because you feel like the subject is notable. If you think the subject may be notable, just comment in the AFD and explain your reasoning as to why the subject is notable. You don't close or relist based on your own opinions of the subject. Relists and closures are not votes. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I relisted because it was a close call, not based on my opinion. I didn't think it was notable as keep, I thought it needed further research and possibly could be notable. I have now gone ahead and evaluated it further and decided to place a keep vote, but prior to that there was not a clear consensus and it deserved a relist. Check it out yourself Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flyboy_Geesus_(musician). Again I am hearing conflicting onions on how a page should be closed or relisted. Some saying don't just base it on the count, some saying analyze all arguments and then make judgments, etc. I suggest that you all write up some clear instructions on how to do this correctly for those that are new like me, so we won't make such mistakes. The problem is not me. The problem is that there are not clear instructions provided.Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Expertwikiguy, you are correct when you write "The problem is that there are not clear instructions provided. Closing at AfD is as much an art as it is a science. This is part of why I dislike non-administrative closures at AfD (and, will say again, this has been true even before I become an admin). One advantage of admin closures is that they are more likely to understand the art - the community has, after all, at some point in time stated that the admin can be trusted to know when to use tools and thus presumably trusted to know not only written policies and guidelines, but what explanatory supplements, essays, and cultural norms accompany using those tools. It takes a bunch of experience at AfD to gain that competency and, honestly, it takes experience determining consensus to be able to do it well at a high pressure venue like AfD. If you're interested in closing stuff WP:RM and WP:RFC are great places for non-admins to exercise and improve their closing skills (and in both cases, there's a fair bit more written about how to close effectively than at AfD). Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that's a good idea; closing RMs and RfCs is likely to end up in a bunch of MRs/close challenges. Suggest just being a participant in discussions for a while and picking up the precedent and unwritten conventions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - The fact that they're still defending their relists/closures and arguing above and stating that they think they'll be ready in one or two months seems to me to indicate that they don't entirely understand what was wrong with the closures/relists and is convincing me this has the potential to turn into another time sink a month or two from now. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Hog Farm. The stubborn defense of actions he has been told from all sides were incorrect says that he will go forward and do it again. Mangoe (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already stated that voluntarily I will stop doing it for min 2 months so I can leaan more about it. If and when I do it, or allowed to do it, I will also stay away from close calls and only do it when there is a clear consensus. I have already learned a lot more about the process from reading comments here. I am fine with whatever decision is made, but do not call me stubborn and have some respect.Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfD closing comments and their canvass comment above make it clear they believe AfD are votes and not about the merits. Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I already stated that I didn't just count votes, are you reading my comments and explenations? in fact on one example I provided, there were more Delete votes, but I relisted due to votes being close and other factors. I am OK whatever decision is made. Although I feel after reading all the comments I have learned a lot more about the process already and if I do it again, I will definitely stay away from the close calls and only do it on the ones with clear consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You canvassed several editors into this discussion asking them to VOTE. Even your example here is it had more delete votes but was close so re-listed. You are not seeing that these are discussions, not polls. A single strong KEEP argument can outweigh 20 deletes. Slywriter (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support a block, but not necessarily indef. As an uninvolved editor who has had their fair share of ups and downs closing and relisting (and occasionally reverting self closures of) AfDs, I would say the user will need to learn from their mistakes and not create more and more, from what I've seen above and elsewhere. AfDs is not about !votes ultimately (in the context of controversial AfDs), and tallies of votes should not be used toward ultimate consensus and closure. User seriously needs more experience before even thinking about relisting or closing AfDs. As an addendum, staying off AfD for two months (as quoted by the accused further up) isnt the way forward. Stay away for as long as it is necessary, IMO two months is too little time away. Nightfury 14:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban from closing or relisting XfD discussions. User clearly lacks competence to interpret consensus and policy v superfluous arguments. Also does not understand what "non-controversial" looks like. Failure above and on user talk to show understanding is further proof. There is no backlog at AfD, we do not need help there from people who only make more of a mess. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that I have taken action to revert a bang-average NAC AfD close, see discussion here. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite. The comments by the user here, at their Talk page and their recent !vote at the AfD mentioned above for Intercontinental Miami demonstrates very clearly to me that this user hasn't the slightest clue about closing AfDs. I'd like to see the user participate at AfDs and to demonstrate a good well rounded knowledge of our guidelines and policies in their reasoning before their block is reconsidered. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Regretful support: This is definitely someone stumbling into a situation which he doesn't understand, and doesn't seem to understand why he needs to stop either; this is why some people want to end AfD NACs entirely, or restrict them to the point of worthlessness. I'm sympathetic to Andrew on the note that one of the topics he stumbled into is something that admins and non-admins alike get badgered about, but I think in this specific case that's an argument against rather than for closing. An indefinite tban is a heavy hand, so I would want to be quite confident that this is 'indefinite' in the 'until you can improve' sense, not the 'forever' sense -- assuming, of course, the possibility for improvement. WP:CIR applies to backstage parts of the wiki too. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support They should participate in AfDs rather than closing or relisting, until they have a lot more experience.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support I don't think the ban should be indefinite, but I do agree that his AFD closures have been very egregious. Not only does he appear to just count the votes to decide the close, he somehow came to the conclusion that a vote of 9-6-3 is keep even though there was no majority for any outcome at the time of the closing. Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

.eco Dispute

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

---

• JWatTheDotECO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• .eco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lourdes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Davidwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a long-simmering and recently smoking dispute at .eco, which was recently reported by Davidwr to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. JWatTheDotECO was edit-warring at the same time that I was trying to mediate. Admin Lourdes then blocked JWatTheDotECO for 72 hours for edit-warring. This is secondarily a request for review of the block, which I believe was reasonable. This is primarily a report on the dispute.

The subject of the article, .eco, is the .eco top-level domain of the Internet. My reading of the Reliable sources is that ICANN, the consortium that manages top-level domains, assigned management of the domain to Big Room in 2017, and that is what the stable versions of our article on the domain have said. However, it also seems that Planet ECO trademarked .ECO (which differs from the domain by case) in about 2008. The trademark appears to conflict with the domain. My own opinion is that Planet ECO is acting as a trademark troll. JWatTheDotECO has been cautioned repeatedly on their talk page about edit-warring.

JWatTheDotECO has been edit-warring to provide "their" version of the .eco article. Davidwr requested dispute resolution at DRN. I tried to begin mediation, but the facts about the domain appeared to be as stated. JWatTheDotECO resumed edit-warring to provide "their" version of the article. The edit war was reported at the edit-warring noticeboard, and Lourdes imposed a block.

My own opinion on the block is that the block was justified, but can lifted if the blocked editor makes a reasonable unblock request and agrees to discuss the dispute. It may be necessary to ask for advice from WMF Legal as to the strange conflicting intellectual property issue, although I hope not. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On the face of it, it looks to me like the block was entirely justified and necessary - they were very obviously edit warring, and blew through 3RR like it wasn't there. There also appears to be an obvious COI issue - if they pick this up when the block expires, I'd have thought an indefinite partial block from the article would be in order, they seem to be unable to edit it non-disruptively. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Procedural comment/request Any further action on this case should be deferred until he has a chance to respond. With that in mind, I recommend putting a "hold" on this (except for the WMF/Legal issue) until he is allowed to edit this page or otherwise participate in this discussion. One way to do that would be to change his block so that he was allowed to edit this page but not content or content-discussion pages, e.g. change the block so it applied to at least "mainspace" and "Talk:" while leaving this page or all of Wikipedia: namespace unblocked. Since his block is only 72 hours, another option is to put this "on hold" (except the WMF issues) until the block expires. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:davidwr that action should be deferred until User:JWatTheDotECO comes off block. They had a chance to discuss rather than edit-warring, and they have the right to request an unblock. I think that, if they agree that they will avoid edit-warring in the future, their block should be downgraded to a partial block to permit them to take part in this discussion. But we don't have to wait for them to come off a block that they brought on themselves, and the facts as reported by reliable sources appear to be against them about the domain, even if the trademark is a toll bridge that they are acting as a trademark troll gatekeeper for. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately we have to go with the sources. And the sources are likely correct considering the domain name for planetdoteco is planetdoteco.com rather than planet.eco and go.eco belongs to Big Room Inc. Planetdoteco is free to take up any trademark dispute they may have with ICANN or with Big Room Inc, unless WMF actually says we need to do something which I doubt, it doesn't concern us unless covered in reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - I would just note that JWatTheDotECO is a new editor as of 12 November 2020 and has only edited the .eco article/Talk page and their own User Talk page. Despite efforts by both Davidwr and myself to provide info about how Wikipedia works, they may or may not yet understand how to engage in other aspects of Wikipedia operations, and so there may not be an unblock request. This may also explain their lack of participation thus far in providing statements into the DRN process. Thank you for your work on resolving this situation. - Dyork (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick note from me. I almost got blocked for violating WP:3RR while trying to revert back JWatTheDotECO's edits, to the clean version Davidwr agreed to.I think the block threat was justifed, but do you think it is? Techie3 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Useless Personal Attack

User:JWatDotECO just insulted User:davidwr: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.eco&type=revision&diff=1005653691&oldid=1005646410&diffmode=source I do know how to read federal (US) contracts, but I also know that federal contracts are not involved in this dispute. A trademark is not a federal contract, but a different type of federal grant of intellectual property. A top-level domain is not a federal contract, and is not awarded by the US government, but by ICANN, which, as its name says, is international. So the insult is irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed ABAN

I propose that User:JWatDotECOUser:JWatTheDotECO be article-banned from the .eco page, for a history of edit-warring, a conflict of interest, and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think Robert McClenon meant JWatTheDotECO (talk · contribs) not JWatDotECO (talk · contribs). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Thank you, User:davidwr. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support since, given JW's limited interests ABAN ≈ a BAN for his UPE & attempted hijacking of the article about a gTLS for his non-notable trademark. Cabayi (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I initially blocked JWat. Our productive editors' time is being wasted in working out and working around JWat's various assertions and edit wars. This should be settled right here asap. Lourdes 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - the report by LightningComplexFire at WP:RFPP mentions three users - TheDotECO, JWatTheDotECO and Jacobmalthouse. There's a definite aroma of smelly socks here. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  The last one you mentioned appears to be a totally different person, with a different COI. As for the first two, whether it's meat or sock or just two editors with the same COI/funder, well, there is almost certainly a connection of some sort. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  That should be TheDotECO (talk · contribs) (uppercase O) which looks to be a sock of JW. Jacob is director of the other company. Cabayi (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  Corrected. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - So much edit warring deserves a perma-block --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - clearly a net negative, and not here to build an encyclopaedia. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Limited support for a page-block on .eco and perhaps other articles closely related to this topic should the need arise later, but opppose a block or ban from discussion pages related to this topic at least for now. Remember, the purpose of a block or ban is to protect the encyclopedia. In this case, blocking him from discussions does not serve that purpose. Furthermore, in my opinion, at least some of the things he has said in the discussion have ultimately improved the .eco article. Disclaimer: I am very involved in the dispute (I'm one of the editors listed above), and am generally against the edits he has made to .eco, on balance they have hurt far more than they have helped. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support – From what I can see, JWatTheDotECO is only here to promote an entity that pays him/her. He/she also is prone to using bullying tactics and making legal threats. We need to be inclusive and supportive and welcoming and all that, but I don't see the ROI in allowing an admittedly COI editor to waste all this time. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  If you are correct, then a page-block will reduce HIS return on investment to nearly zero and he may walk away since Wikipedia will be a "waste of time" for him. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I didn't mean to offend you. I spend a great deal of my time here cleaning up vandalism and other messes (sometimes by well-intentioned people). There are a few misguided souls, though, who are not here to build an encyclopedia, and I don't believe Wikipedia is worse off if they go away. I'll bend over backward to encourage and help newbies who I think might learn to follow the rules, but I just don't have time for people who abuse the system, or take pleasure in destroying other folk's work. I'm sorry if I sound like a hard-ass, but this project is a planetary treasure, and I don't have a lot of patience for those who try to tear it down. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: No offense taken. Yes, there are people who are WP:NOTHERE, it's just that the editor in question hasn't quite "crossed that line" for me, yet. I do appreciate that he has "crossed that line" for you and others. This difference of opinion is one of the reasons Wikipedia is governed largely by consensus rather than by the opinions of one person. Robert McClenon I saw your note below. Thanks for adding your voice to this discussion, it is appreciated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Both TheDotECO and JWatTheDotECO have been ABANned from the .eco page. This leaves the question of what to do about Jacobmalthouse. Suggest a separate subsection to discuss this. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Jacobmalthouse is affiliated with Big Room, who is the registrar for the .eco domain. JWatTheDotECO and TheDotECO are affiliated with Planet ECO, which obtained a conflicting trademark and appears to be making an invalid claim to the domain and appears to be acting as a trademark troll. The first has a legally valid conflict of interest. The second has a legally questionable conflict of interest. Jacobmalthouse has not disrupted Wikipedia, and I see no need for sanctions against them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed that Jacobmalthouse hasn't edited the article since 2012 and has only made one edit since 2012, earlier this month at DRN. Seems that we can leave this editor in peace at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment to User:davidwr - I agree with User:UncleBubba that sometimes we need to reduce the investment in Wikipedia of a disruptive editor to zero. The encyclopedia as such must taken precedence over editors who do not respect the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Unban request for Zombiedude101

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

---

Zombiedude101 (aka Zombiedude101z and more than ten other accounts) is requesting their ban be lifted. You can see the original community ban at WP:AN/Archive313. I have copied the following unban request from User talk:Zombiedude101. --Yamla (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR I was blocked a long time ago for acts of vandalism. I accept that, I was a little shit in school. All's fair. HOWEVER, when I came back 5 years later to get my account unblocked I admitted that in the years in between I'd made edits on various IPs and alt accounts, which automatically got my appeal denied. I got angry and, frustrated, began making alt accounts (socking) so I could make constructive edits whether or not WP wanted me to. Which eventually led to the issue below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombiedude101z#Let's_talk I feel my point above illustrates the grievances I have, to be honest. The only reason I'm blocked and banned is because I refused to go through the channels and get unbanned and decided to keep socking with constructive edits. So I've given it time, I've waited a year if not longer and I'm taking one more shot at coming in via the appropriate channels. I'm here to be civil, I have no intent of causing trouble. So you can let me return to making constructive edits as I had with Neall Ellis, Worm, etc and we can end this dispute. My attitude hasn't always been great and part of that was because I felt (and, to an extent, still feel) I was ignored and dismissed as a vandal without looking at the context of my situation. I got angry ans frustrated that legitimate edits I made were reverted solely on the basis I was 'socking'.

To be clear, I am not trying to shift blame, I am simply trying to explain that the actions/attitude of others didn't mesh well with me at the time and the way certain things were done (such as how appeals would be locked, preventing me from responding to certain comments, or points that I raised being ignored rather than getting addressed) - that left me frustrated and inclined to push back. And, since it's a consistently recurring point put to me - I didn't make any death threats. That certainly wasn't me. So when I make comments like "I feel like every other point I raised was ignored with WP admins just pointing blindly at legislation and not using their heads to understand the context of the situation" I feel like this never gets addressed fully, like being treated like a bad faith editor when I was trying to show I was only interested in being useful. As an example of a good faith edit that was treated as bad faith - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neall_Ellis - this was recently restored for me and I don't see what's wrong with the content here. And ultimately - what harm is there in allowing me to return to making edits? One misstep and it's a few mouse clicks (or screen taps) to revert and block me.

I also question why I had to wait until now to appeal. I didn't commit further block evasion in 2020, to what I recall. At least nothing to warrant waiting another year, I know that! Think it was a misunderstanding. The only thing I actually recall doing was reaching out to Yamla to talk to them about my ban, which should not have reset the clock.

To cut a long story short - let's start on a clean slate. I've come across the wrong way (and some have misunderstood my intent) and should've been less hostile to people over how certain things were done. I do intend to clean up a few things, ie game affiliated articles, emulation, Wildbow's Web Serial Ward etc. Edits such as those made on my 'sock' accounts that were rolled back on the basis they were sockedits, since they were intended as constructive - not disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:Zombiedude101 (talk • contribs)

Strong oppose, and I request they not be allowed to appeal the ban via any venue, including UTRS, for another two years; violations should reset the counter. I don't buy the claim they made no death threat against a sitting senator and they don't address the racist usernames. But even if we ignore those problems, just take a look at the various UTRS appeals, UTRS appeal #39916, UTRS appeal #39701, UTRS appeal #40020, UTRS appeal #40022, UTRS appeal #40024, UTRS appeal #40038. These are not the actions of someone who will be a constructive member of Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per Yamla. Unblocking this user would be a massive timesink, and to be blunt we don't need an editor like this on the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Zombiedude here. I'm not here to sock but I felt I should be able to directly address people here since nobody has come back to my talk page to speak with me. I think we genuinely got off on the wrong foot when I came back in 2017/18 - and yeah, I made a bunch of UTRS appeals. That was because certain questions / points I raised weren't answered, the appeals were closed before I was addressed with the info I needed. It wasn't done in bad faith. Surely that I've waited more than a year to come backand work with the process rather than going back to making sockedits (which were intended as constructive, not vandalism) surely that's a show of good faith on my part? I will say again that I had nothing to do with racism or death threats, I don't know why that keeps getting brought up.

Please, I'm asking for the benefit of the doubt. One misstep and you can give me the boot with a tap, I'm only asking for an otherwise clean slate and a chance to work with rather than against people. I'm editing off my phone at the moment so forgive any formatting errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:612E:EC00:2C40:441C:7A:7ACC (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

IP address blocked. Zombiedude101 knows perfectly well about WP:EVADE. They can leave comments on their user talk page which someone will copy over to this noticeboard. --Yamla (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This actually brings up another problem. Looking at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:612E:EC00:2C40:441C:7A:7ACC/64, I see this contribution to Neall Ellis, one of Zombiedude's favourite articles. I haven't run a checkuser, but I can draw no other conclusion than that Zombiedude evaded their ban just last month, and this whole request to have the ban lifted is therefore in bad faith. --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose You lost me at the point at which you socked on your own unban appeal thread.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, having handled some of the UTRS appeals I was prepared to sit this out. Unfortunately the zombie's impatience in socking his own appeal because of a lack of reply on his talk page for quarter of an hour, his use of an IP which shows up repeated block evasion, uncivil edit summaries (even where he correctly identifies a racist post), and uncharitable naming of users (the Scots wiki thing). Block all the socks TPA & UTRS access and reset the clock for another year (or two). Cabayi (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The user editing here demonstrates to me that they are unable to edit within the framework of the policies and conventions of this project. Tiderolls 16:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yamla's statements and WP:BANEVASION. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose hasn't remotely respected the ban and has been a jerk even while socking. I definitely don't buy the claim that there was no death threat, unless that was just word games about what constitutes a "death threat". Someone from that IP admitted being Zombiedude101 a month after the edit, and in between there was a continuous stream of edits by what was obviously the same person with an interest in hamsters. The edit summaries from this sock are also revealing: don't rv my comments you prick...it's not a personal attack if it's true... the next time someone does it they're getting my boot up where the sun doesn't shine... I'll report you to the administration for being an obstructive scrote. Our main duty here is to the people who want to actually build an encyclopedia constructively, and they shouldn't have to deal with this. I would also support a restriction on appeals. Hut 8.5 20:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. On the WP:AGF–WP:PACT continuum, it's plainly obvious this user is of the fool-us-thrice variety. I also agree with Yamla that a 2-year appeal moratorium + reset mechanism should be attached to the existing sanction. El_C 05:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. In my interactions with this user, and their socking in this very appeal, it's clear that they will disregard the rules when they find them inconvenient or disagree with them. There is no reason at this time to believe that they will abide by a one misdeed and out sanction any more than they have abided by other policies. It's pretty clear that, once this appeal is rejected, that they are likely to return to socking to do what they wish. If that is true, then this appeal just wastes everyone's time(including them). I want ever willing user to be able to participate, but they have to meet us halfway, and I don't see a sincere effort to do that here. Regrettably I must oppose lifting the ban at this time. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

El C

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

---

I was surprised by User:El C's unilateral close of this discussion, as it appeared to me as unilateral Wikipedia:Supervote that did not reflect the consensus of commenting editors not involved in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list which came to light during the discussion, and was very lenient in that it imposed a narrow one month topic ban on an editor repeating behaviour that ARBCOM sanctioned with a three month project-wide ban and a one year topic ban from all of Eastern Europe.

Then I saw El C posting a "Respect" message on an involved editor's talk page, and User:SlimVirgin commenting on El C being WP:INVOLVED. I also noticed El C making decisions after long continuous editing sessions, binge-like editing.

And then, just now, I chanced upon this close at ANI by El C, and while the block may be correct (as it was not a direct appeal, but a discussion of one), the statement that:

"There's no more appealing topic bans to Jimbo, as far as I'm concerned. No more appealing anything, in fact, in contravention of an existing restriction. With the possible exception of foundation-y stuff, perhaps."

Is a unilateral dictate overriding Wikipedia policy, as Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeal to Jimbo Wales says:

"Any arbitration decision may be appealed to Jimbo Wales. While it is not unusual for him to consider an appeal, it is exceedingly unusual for him to overturn such a decision. A topic-banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales. An appeal should be lodged at his user talk page."

An administrator isn't supposed to supervote or make unilateral policy dictates.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Just my name, per se., as a section header. Refershing. BTW, I think you skipped a couple of steps of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, Bob not snob. Anyway, with respect to Piotrus, this was an WP:ACDS action that I maintain was proportionate, even if mild. With respect to the topic ban violation by Saflieni, I explained the reasons for the block at length on their talk page (diff). As for "Respect" for VM's user page quotes: damn straight respect. Respect for ideological opponents who are poignant. Who are not buffoons. More of that, please! So, that's as far as this scattershot effort is concerned. El_C 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This response at 08:06 (and admin follow up to Saflieni at 07:56) was made after a 17 hour editing session. El_C has been editing since 15:32 yesterday, with his longest break being less than 3 hours (02:22 to 05:16). Respect for superhuman editing abilities aside, you wouldn't want a doctor to operate on you, a pilot to fly your plane, or a trucker to drive on the same highway as you after a 17 hour shift. --Bob not snob (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do I get the sense that even though you say "respect," your comment directly above seems actually intent on disrespecting me. Anyway, good thing I'm not flying a plane, then, isn't it? Good thing I'm editing an online website, instead. El_C 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You aren't merely editing, you are also making administrative decisions that affect other editors.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

On an online website. It is not a plane, a train, or even a parade float. Anyway, anything of actual substances? El_C 08:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Also noting that I did just firmly chastise VM at RSN (diff), what, like an hour ago, but I suppose that wouldn't really fit with Bob not snob's narrative. Colour me surprised. El_C 08:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your supervote on 2 February, was in the middle of a 27 hour session (15:18 February 1st -18:16 the next day). A unilateral WP:ACDS action against an editor may be permissible, but it doesn't give you the right to make a unilateral close on a community discussion. Unilaterally overriding policy, by stating "no more appealing topic bans to Jimbo", is not permissible either.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This was a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, which is a place for requesting admin action, not a community discussion. And it is arbitration decisions that can be appealed to Jimbo, that is those made by Arbcom. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not edit for 27 hours on Feb 2. That is patently false. Not that it matters. But having just glanced at it, I see a 6 hour break and a 4 hour break and many other breaks that are in the hours. Again, not that it matters. Also, again, I'm not sure if Bob not snob is paying attention, so I'll repeat: not a supervote, an WP:ACDS action. El_C 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, per WP:JIMBO, indeed, Arbitration-related appeals only. But, regardless, appealing to Jimbo isn't a license to contravene one's ban on his talk page for 2 weeks, especially when it's obvious Jimbo ain't responding. El_C 09:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that's only there for the sake of sentiment. Imagine the outcry if Jimbo was to actually overturn a decision? It's a bit like the monarch's power to withhold the royal assent from an act of parliament in the UK - a theoretical power that would only be used if society completely broke down. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Which was my point, but clearly wikilawyering abound. Anyway, not sure if Bob not snob absorbed this point, hopefully, they will now: Saflieni topic ban was imposed by the community, not by the Arbitration Committee, so their appeal on Jimbo's talk page was invalid form the outset. Again, that doesn't really matter. What does matter is the 2 weeks where Saflieni went on and on there, in contravention of their ban. Starting to feel like a broken record. El_C 09:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Close this section and move on. I can't see anything egregious here. This is more of a chilling effect attempt. I've chummed up with some of the people I have blocked; there's no rule that prohibits you from doing that. Anyway, this section is not required and is close to harassing an admin for doing their work. Lourdes 09:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• "you wouldn't want a doctor to operate on you ... after a 17-hour shift." I would. Bring on the medical compo. Kerrr-ching! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• +1 Don't see any issue here (and remember, ArbCom not ANI is the forum for issues with admins). If El_C can edit to this standard on 17-hour shifts then they are an even better admin than I appreciated, and the project is all the better for their productivity. Britishfinance (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• I too believe El_C deserves applause, not censure, for his literally tireless work in this space.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Feedback required: Is my close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDB Financial Services a BADNAC?

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

---

Hello. I would like some feedback from the admins or other experienced editors about a non-admin closure. A while ago I closed an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDB Financial Services (my close remarks). I admit I closed this a bit early (14 days had not yet completed, today is the 12th day). However, after looking at, I considered it relatively uncontroversial. I looked at other AfDs as well and many of them had no participation even after relisting. Among all of them, I found this one which had almost no conflicting opinions and was probably the least controversial. 2 participants suggested a Delete while 1 participant suggest a Merge/Redirect. Everyone was against having a standalone article. Based on the opinions in the AfD, on balance I closed it as a redirect (from what I understand, redirect is also a valid substitute for Delete as per WP:ATD-R). I also left a message on the redirect target, just in case someone wants to merge information. I understand that AfD is not a vote, but we need to take into account the arguments in the opinions.

However, the nominator Celestina007 undid my close on the basis that the AfD is controversial and it is a WP:BADNAC. We had a discussion on my talk page. Personally I am still not clear for what reasons is this a controversial close. I would like some feedback from admins/other experienced editors about this, so that I can also learn. Is closing the discussion early the main problem? Or is my result "redirect" the problem. Let's say if 14 days had gone by completely (with no additional inputs), would my close still be considered controversial? Should the result have been "Delete" instead of "Redirect"?

Thank you. I apologise in advance if I have caused any inconvenience. I admit I don't have experience in closing AfDs and this was one of the first ones I have closed. I look forward to your responses and learning more.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• DreamLinker, with only 2 participants, it just isn't much of a discussion, to begin with. El_C 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for your response. Yes, I definitely agree that a bit more participation would have helped. I will keep this in mind.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes to what El C wrote. Ultimately redirect seems like a reasonable outcome and if I had seen this article there's a good chance that's how I'd have closed it. However, this shows a reason I think it unwise for non-admins to be closing articles, even when they're not wrong: they face added skepticism that sysops wouldn't. Sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Given that we are now up to two discussions about this on AN, perhaps it's time revisit the NAC discussions which always seem to agree that we need to provide more clarity about when NAC is appropriate at AfD but never quite get there on the details. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for your explanation. I now have a better idea about AfD closures. It is certainly a lot more nuanced than I previously thought. It would definitely be helpful to provide a more concrete criteria for NAC. If you start a discussion about this, please let me know on my talk page. I would be happy to participate and provide my input.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• First, thanks to DreamLinker for asking for the review of their own actions. That's an excellent practice. So, to touch on a bunch of different things here:
  • I don't think this was a terribly controversial close per-se, and probably would not have drawn any question had it been closed by an admin. As a NAC, I think it's marginal and better left to an admin.
  • I don't see any reason to short-circuit the relist period; I would not have done that even in my admin capacity.
  • Celestina007 was definitely out of line for unilaterally reverting the close. The way this should have played out after the NAC was Celestina007 posting to DreamLinker's talk page, "I disagree with your close, would you be willing to relist it?", and then DreamLinker responding, "Sure, no problem". Life would have moved on, and a minor error corrected with no drama-board involvement.

-- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you so much for your detailed response. It has helped me to understand the process better. I will be careful about NACs in the future and I also understand that it is best not to short circuit an AfD.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — @Barkeep49 & El_C, @RoySmith, Hello guys, My thought process was & still is they had no business closing an AFD with one delete and one merge !vote, coupled with what they just stated above, I believe WP:NACPIT#1 (I know it’s an Essay) clearly references scenarios such as this by clearly stating if non sysops had inexperience in such areas that it was best to avoid NAC closure's. I am however fine with any way this plays out, but I believe Shaky AFD’s such as the aforementioned should predominantly be handled by admins. In retrospect i agree with @RoySmith that my unilateral revert of the action wasn’t good practice, i see now I shouldn’t have done so seeing as I was too INVOLVED, I apologize to the community for that. Celestina007 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I'm not saying this was a good close. But, that doesn't mean you can unilaterally change it. Ask the closer to relist. Find some uninvolved admin and ask them to take a look at it. Bring the problem to WP:DRV, or to WP:AN. Any of those would have been better than just reverting the close on your own. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith, that’s exactly where I went wrong. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reverting the close wasn't right but that's already been discussed above. ... are you oblivious of the fact that non sysops aren’t allowed to close controversial AFD’s [78] is a rude way to start a discussion. Also, if you start an AFD and it's closed as a redirect, challenging that close is almost always a waste of editor time (yours and others). A non-notable subsidiary/affiliate/product/brand/etc. should be redirected to the parent company, as a navigation aid... that seems extremely obvious. There's no sense in challenging it. I think it was not a controversial NAC (nobody was in favor of keeping). I think there are plenty of AFDs that close with two !votes, especially the more straightforward ones, so I'm not even sure relisting this was a good use of editor time. All around I think this was a good close and I think the closer has handled this whole situation extremely well. Hats off. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think the redirect outcome was not unreasonable, and I personally wouldn't have overturned the close; however, I agree that the decision should have been left to an administrator. There was indeed limited participation in the discussion, so for that situation we turn to the relevant guideline at WP:NOQUORUM, which mentions that if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option in situations where there is limited participation. Of course, this should be weighed against the alternative options of relisting, closing as "delete", and closing as "no consensus", and since DreamLinker lacked the ability to carry out the potential "delete" outcome, they might be biased towards the other possible outcomes. I also agree that, in principle, Celestina007 should have started a less aggressive dialogue with DreamLinker before overturning the close unilaterally—even if Celestina007 were an administrator, this action would still have been improper per WP:NACD, which limits unilateral NAC reversals to uninvolved admins, and they were the AfD nominator. But with that being said, DreamLinker did mention in their closing comment, If you dispute my close, please feel free to reopen it., which could be interpreted as leave for even involved editors to reopen the discussion. Mz7 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Intent to unblock

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

---

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

---

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

It is my intent to unblock EEng, who was recently blocked by Beland for what appears to be this comment as uncivil. I do not find it particularly uncivil, but ignoring that, it is my belief that blocking someone for a comment two days after the fact is inconsistent with the blocking policy’s prohibition on punitive blocks.

It is my intent to unblock EEng as I do not consider this block in line with the policy, and when it’s so far outside of what we’d normally consider appropriate I don’t believe we need to wait for an appeal. It had been my intent to discuss this with Beland, but he appears to have stopped editing the same minute I posted on his talk page. Since then Black Kite and David Eppstein have also posted similar requests. As there appears to be some agreement here, and the blocking policy recommends taking to AN when the blocking admin is not online, I am bringing this here and notifying the community of my intent to unblock, which I will do later tonight unless there is serious objection. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock for the reasons that I gave in a comment on Beland's talk page, just before seeing this at AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• support unblock and a massive trout to Beland. There was no valid reason for this block and as Tony pointed out, it was punitive. CUPIDICAE💕 21:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Tony, I support you lifting the block. Having now read that diff's text, nothing struck me as too egregious. Maybe worthy of a warning (specified), but not of a block, certainly not for a full week. El_C 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Unblock - Blocking a user for comments made (and waned for) days ago appears to be punitive, not preventative. SQL^{Query me!} 21:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• support unblock Seems a bit silly to me. talk to !dave 21:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment and question Well, I very rarely block anyone, so if this isn't in line with usual practice, I certainly support whatever the consensus of administrators is. The sort of incivility that EEng has demonstrated is intermittent, so it is my hope both that we'd be spared another week of potential personal attacks on other editors, even if none might have happened during that time or in the previous two days. I really think the appropriate action in response to the conversation I found was an admonition, which is what I did. If someone then responds to an admonition not to engage in certain behavior by repeating that behavior on the spot, I'm not sure what other appropriate responses the community can take. This editor was blocked for a day or two for personal attacks before, and I guess not changed their behavior, so escalating block length was I thought a typical practice. Would this block have been appropriate if started two days ago? I wasn't pinged in EEng's reply, and I wasn't particularly quickly seeking out their reply because I was not looking forward to reading it, but if this happens again, if I reply quickly, is a block justified or would there be another reason not to? In reply to Tryptofish's comment on my user talk page, yes, I found this incivility in an archived conversation, though it wasn't particularly ancient. I was hoping the participants had had a chance to cool down so they could consider their actions calmly in retrospect, and thus improve the chances of a productive outcome. Perhaps a year or two ago I learned that Wikipedia is having editor retention problems, and that women have specifically reported quitting because they don't like arguing with rude and sharp-elbowed people whenever they have a concern about something. The best way I can think of to solve that problem is for uninvolved editors to speak up more often and admonish uncivil behavior. Folks have also complained that there are some long-time editors who have many positive contributions that remain uncivil because they have learned that such behavior will not have any consequences, and as they have interactions with large numbers of other editors, are suppressing editor retention. So I'm in support of stronger consequences in order to improve Wikipedia culture, but I'm open to ideas if other administrators have suggestions for a better approach than what I've been doing. -- Beland (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In reply to the question you asked, in the future I wouldn't base it on the rapidity of your reply, but on a consideration of WP:NOTPUNITIVE. I also made another suggestion, about how to use DS, at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Tryptofish: I'm not sure how placing civility discretionary sanctions on a specific talk page would help much, given that the editor is exhibiting the behavior on a variety of pages. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am far more concerned now that you really don't know what the basic blocking policy is on Wikipedia and your response is, well, not good. CUPIDICAE💕 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Beland: would you be so kind as to provide a specific diff of such egregious incivility it required blocking Eeng? CUPIDICAE💕 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Not only is it punitive, but it was made two days after EEng's (mildly combative) post which criticised Beland as well. I note that this was only this admin's third block since 2014, and so they may not be au fait with community norms on blocking. My concern would be that this type of block may have gone un-noticed if it were not of a high-profile editor. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to make this point myself, BK. I am concerned had it not been Eeng who has hundreds of talk page stalkers, this block could've led to an otherwise low-profile but productive editor to leave forever. CUPIDICAE💕 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? So if editor X insults editor Y, admin A gives a warning, editor X insults admin A > admin A is now involved. Are we actually saying that once editor X insults admin A, even in such a mild way that it's kind of laughable, they've made admin A involved? Is admin A now permanently involved w/re editor X? Can someone just go around mildly insulting admins until they reach number 1115 and declare victory? :D —valereee (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock A block like this is not going to do anything for editor retention. It is another example of a legacy admin out of touch with policy. P-K3 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock Beland was involved, apart from this being ridiculous. I think this is admin abuse and I would like to see a review of Beland's admin actions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Also, per Tony and every other rationale I've read. Yes. This is concerning. @Beland: Please unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock of comedy star EEng. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support unblock. I don't believe I've ever blocked anybody for being uppity to me — I certainly hope not. It's not a good look. But Beland's comment above is extremely reasonable, and I'm glad to see it. Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support unblock per above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unblocked given the support above, and the openness of Beland to go with consensus, I have unblocked EEng. I’ll let someone else figure out when to close. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock per my earlier comment mentiond at the top of this thread. I find it a little ironic that the comment on EEng's talk announcing the block praised another user for using "a productive technique to resolve the disagreement" instead of being confrontational. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock. (edit conflict) Beland appears eager to learn from this particular situation. Outside of EEng and/or this specific case, I think there's a point that intermittent incivility is tough to deal with here. Let's unblock and move on. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Curious, how long does anyone think this guy would last around here? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock block was clearly punitive. BTW wikipedia is not a courtroom so the analogy below is not germane. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose unblock. Let's face it, the guy's a schmuck. Longer block needed. C'mon people, let's Make Wikipedia Great Again! Mild support unblock Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion after unblock granted

• Comment for @TonyBallioni: I think if a lawyer in a courtroom had said something like "the prosecutor is clearly incompetent to practice law, given that they believe..." or in Congress, "the Senator is incompetent to legislate on immigration issues because..." they would have been gavelled into silence because they would be derailing a rational debate by making a personal attack that's going to result in an irrational response not in the public interest. That's the standard of civility I had in mind. I know Wikipedia has seen much worse, but the current bar seems to be set a bit low. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Beland, honestly, there are plenty of areas of Wikipedia that I am admittedly incompetent in. And if I were and didn't know, I'd hope someone had the fortitude to straight up tell me about it. El_C 22:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, WP:CIRNOT would consider that a personal attack, and I agree with that. -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sure, CIRNOT should be factored in, and of course, it makes sense to offset CIR that way — I suppose I'm just not seeing how it applied in this specific instance, is all... That is to say, the notion that we can't mention CIR, at all, in the course of a dispute, I don't think that makes sense (or is practical). El_C 22:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a court room, you're not a judge, jury or prosecutor, so I would get that idea out of your head otherwise it'll likely lead to more problems. CUPIDICAE💕 22:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: I'm not saying it is, but I'm using those as examples of similar forums that have requirements for civil language. Do you feel the standards used by those institutions are too strict for Wikipedia? Are there other examples you would look to instead? -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I really think you should stop digging this hole, Beland. I'd also like to point out that this comparison demonstrates your lack of understanding of blocking policy, punishment, at least in the US, is punitive, as was your block. CUPIDICAE💕 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Some pearls to clutch CUPIDICAE💕 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you are helping your cause here Praxidicae. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I'll be sure not to take it into account. CUPIDICAE💕 23:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem buddy, be sure that you do! PackMecEng (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• CIRNOT should be read more carefully. If interpreted literally, WP:Competence is required should be deleted and that's not going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• You're not allowed to say Beland is incompetent - rightly so, it's a broad brush over the editor in question. What you are allowed to say is that Beland lacks the necessary competencies to be blocking people - for example, they don't understand blocking policy, are inexperiened in blocking other editors and so on. Nick (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• While I do support making Wikipedia more civil, I’m also not operating under the illusion that people disagreeing with each other on the internet are going to use parliamentary language all the time. The reply to you was a bit combative, but it’s on the lower end of that spectrum when people are mad at admins warning them. We tend to give people leeway when disagreeing with sysops warning them.
  The main reason for the unblock though, like I mentioned above, was that blocking someone two days later for a mildly heated comment isn’t in line with our practice or the language of the blocking policy. It doesn’t accomplish anything other than punishment. I went ahead and unblocked since there seemed to be unanimous agreement here that it was the right course. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

External videos
Not of the body! -EEng

• Pragmatism is needed at Wikipedia. Surtsicna was making edits such as diff which were accurately described as WP:POINT in diff. Surtsicna's diff shows adding {{Not in body}} to referenced items in the infobox (the template documentation contradicts that usage). Under those circumstances, it is too much to expect pollyana engagement. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• Ya know, you often hear a lot about unblockables. Personally I've always been more concerned about undesysopables. 07:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. The link in the OP doesn't quite catch the entirety of my response to Beland that so offended him. The full response is at the bottom of the page here [79]. EEng 12:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Super Mario effect ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Leave Mike Lindell out of this! Scoundrel! El_C 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • EEng, your challenge now is to say something that will get you blocked by a competent admin without such a thin skin. I hope you won't take it up. And, regarding the undesysopables, an admin, who deleted everything that he saw with a speedy deletion tag on it, however inaccurate, took over a decade from when I first pointed this out to be desysopped, but it happened eventually. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

With bonus points for multiple tags, of course. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wot EE said. At least one of my blocks have been over me pointing out, in very certain terms, that admins were enabling hopeless fellow admins. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 14:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• So if you are uncivil but get many friends, especially among admins, you get unblocked very soon. And whoever blocked you for incivility gets then threatened with desysop. Very nice.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  More like: if you're blocked inappropriately by a rusty old-school admin but have friends, the inappropriate block is likely to be noticed quickly and overturned. If you're blocked inappropriately but have few friends, no one might notice and the inappropriate block remains in place for a while, and possibly you get discouraged and quit. So yeah, the admin responsible should have a care lest the community decide to dispense with his or her services. And I was just thinking: a week? What planet is this guy from? EEng 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Am not gonna say it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, respectfully (to all), the experience of that admin seems a bit in question to me. I've had days when I blocked more users than they have in total. Days? Hours, even... El_C 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that I've come to consider that responding to mere incivility with blocks as a generally bad idea. I remember returning from a long hiatus and almost blocking Volunteer Marek for comments that, today, I consider no more than plain unfriendly. Thank goodness I thought better of it! Look, being polite is important, but we shouldn't go overboard with forcing that too hard as an imperative, especially with safe space sort of notions. For being in the trenches of the worldwide collaborative information project, I think we're doing alright. El_C 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I can post right now at least half a dozen comments way more incivil than that that have been thrown at me in the past week alone. Shrug. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Like, I had the block window open with a duration set and everything. Phew! El_C 16:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• My main objection is to blocking EEng for this particular comment...there are so many better things one could block him for. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. It's incidents like this that sap my determination to be the best I can be. If my finest work is going to remain unrecognized, why not just rest on my laurels? EEng 06:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, the related-discussion ended with the US Senate chairmanships being 'deleted' from Biden's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• If people in this section are interested in moving forward with their ideas, the community has recently had extensive discussions on both these problems. See the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC#7. "Unblockables" before we start spinning our wheels again. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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