Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	8	12	20
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	4	3	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	27	19	46
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 156 sockpuppet investigations
• 39 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 19 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 6 requests for RD1 redaction
• 33 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 41 requested closures
• 114 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 8398 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Jitendra Dhaka 2024-09-16 06:46 2024-09-23 06:46 move Persistent disruptive editing Liz Talk:Gaza genocide 2024-09-15 21:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case User talk:Magnolia677 2024-09-15 21:01 2024-09-16 21:01 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Bbb23 Template:Snow Patrol 2024-09-15 20:13 2024-10-15 20:13 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Snow Patrol 2024-09-15 20:11 2026-09-15 20:11 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User:Daniel Quinlan/Sandbox 2024-09-15 18:54 2026-01-01 00:00 move test protection Daniel Quinlan Maria Zakharova 2024-09-15 05:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Saryuparin Brahmin 2024-09-15 03:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Philippe Lazzarini 2024-09-15 03:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:25 2024-09-17 19:25 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:23 2024-09-17 19:23 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/portal/core 2024-09-14 17:01 indefinite edit,move RFPP request Anachronist Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha 2024-09-14 06:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ogaden (clan) 2024-09-13 20:38 2026-09-13 20:38 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Galileo Galilei 2024-09-13 19:05 indefinite move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Infobox cricket tournament 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Archive top red/styles.css 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3381 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2024-09-13 15:28 2024-12-13 15:28 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; up to ECP as semi isn't sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Anastasia Trofimova 2024-09-12 21:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Halhul 2024-09-12 16:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C

Falun Gong: 0RR without explanation or expiration date

A little background before I get to my request: As some of you know, among other topics, I'm a regular over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, particularly topics related to folklore studies. Late 2019, I encountered a huge amount of advertisements from Shen Yun while visiting the US. This featured lots of colorful costumes, featured heavy emphasis on 'tradition', and was heavily marketed as a 'cultural experience'. I soon found that behind this dance company is a new religious movement called Falun Gong, which had not only been aggressively supporting extreme right-wing groups here in Germany by way of its various news outlets (like the The Epoch Times) but also soon started making headlines in the United States in their tremendous support for fringe stuff.

When I encountered it, somehow English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article made no mention of important topics like Falun Gong and Shen Yun's compound and de facto headquarters, Dragon Springs (as you can see, we now have an entire article on this). The article even somehow managed to avoid referring to Falun Gong as a new religious movement despite a tremendous amount of peer-reviewed academic sources describing the group as exactly that at every turn. These are just a few of the issues from which the article suffered.

Compiling numerous peer-reviewed sources and media reports, I quickly experienced why scholar James R. Lewis wrote that English Wikipedia's coverage of Falun Gong and its propaganda and media outlets (like Shen Yun and The Epoch Times) appeared to be "little more than mouthpieces for the FLG [Falun Gong] point of view" (2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, p. 81. Cambridge University Press.). The reason why was pretty obvious: These articles have been (and are) absolutely crawling with single-purpose accounts whose core goal is clearly to make pro-FG edits whenever and wherever possible. Some of them have been camped out on these articles for around a decade. They're all too happy to brigade and lawyer away anyone who might want to introduce a source or claim that would not meet the approval of self-created narratives. I've witnessed exactly the sort of behavior Lewis describes in his assessment and the attempts at character assassination and similar I've seen also check out with the various accounts out there by scholars of being harassed and/or threatened when researching the topic.

Absolutely nothing has been pleasant about any of this. On the up side, these articles have seen major improvements over the course of 2020 and many great editors have since gotten involved, making this sort of brigading and lawyering much more difficult to manage. So, while the SPAs are still now and then making attempts at reverting these articles to their previous states, the old norm appears to have been smashed and the SPAs seem to have lost the field to basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.

So imagine my surprise a couple days ago when, after signing on as I normally have since 2005, I checked my watchlist, and made a straightforward revert ([1]) only for me to receive a message that I had been blocked from editing for 24 hours by @Guerillero:. As admin Guerillero—whose name I did not recognize—informed me, Guerillero had added me to a special list back in July of 2020. Anyone on Guerillero's list was apparently forbidden from performing any reverts on this page (yes, that's right, 0RR), it is indefinite, and, no, according to Guerillero, he certainly did not need to discuss or explain it. Guerillero did, however, notify me that he had dropped a template on my talk page back in July 2020, during which time I was no doubt being bombarded with the usual harassment from SPAs and missed it or I would have immediately appealed to avoid absurd situations like this one. As I had apparently not reverted anything on that article since July 2020 (or you'd have heard all about it from me at that time), it sure seems like there was never any reason for me to be on this strange list to begin with. I still have no clue why I would be included on this list—the article already has a very visible 1RR policy. Guerillero's block was soon lifted by @Bishonen: and various other admins lended support for the removal ([2]).

I fail to see how this in any way assists Wikipedia. In fact, stuff like this actively discourages the editors who we really need on these articles. Could someone please remove my name from this ridiculous and arbitrary list so I don't have to deal with this nonsense again? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment as-to whether your block was justified, but Falun Gong is an extremely controversial topic visited by many SPAs and an admin-imposed 0RR is justified. 0RR for all editors, not just editors on some list you claim exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"List [I] claim exists"? The list is right here, which I linked to above. The article is set to 1RR. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I was mistaken. I thought 0RR applied to all editors at Falun Gong, it does not. I think you need to appeal at WP:AE, though I will not stop you if you want to appeal here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: You are going about this the wrong way. Discretionary sanctions exist for very good reasons. I have no idea why you were caught up in a 0RR restriction but the fact is that you were. Rather than starting a general discussion regarding your misfortune, you should ask somewhere quiet about how to appeal. The first step of any successful appeal is to work out what happened at the time. Perhaps, to an uninvolved administrator, it did appear there was excessive reverting, and they reasonably concluded that handing out half-a-dozen restrictions was desirable. Try to see it from their point of view (AGF: they are not mad, they are not trying to get you, they would have had a reason). After that, have low-key and polite discussion with the admin about what you would need to do for them to lift the restriction. Point out some of what you said above (fringe, SPAs). Then wait for their reply and politely engage with what they say. I, or others, can say how to proceed if dissatisfied after that but those two steps are very important. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The admin who made the list, Guerillero, told me to come here or go to AE. I figured I'd come by here first. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The unblock request seems a bit worrying? The request asked for an appeal to be copied to AN/AE and was denied and told to wait until the block was over? Yes, it’d probably have taken longer than 24 hours to reach a consensus to unblock anyway, but this seems effectively like unappealable blocks (minus the IAR unblock). As for the 0RR, is there a good reason for keeping it up? Why was it imposed originally? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Only have time to skim but edits around time of 0RR ban seem fine. So support lifting that restriction. Also ArbCom should maybe create a reasonable quick process to undo short AE blocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The 0RR restriction should be lifted, I don't think it should have been set in the first place. I have edited that article from time to time but hadn't realized it had been imposed, if I had I would have objected. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's time to lift the 0RR restriction. Background: Guerillero discusses his 0RR sanction of six editors in this ANI thread from July 2020. Guerillero's post is here, stating that he has placed "most everyone involved in the [Falun Gong] article under a 0RR sanction" in an attempt "to keep the article from becoming a mud fight". Perhaps unfortunately, nobody there took him up on his offer to answer questions about these sanctions. The six people are, I think, three from each side, per BF's description above of the sides. So, on Guerillero's part, it looks like an "0RR 'em all indefinitely and let God sort 'em out" approach in what seemed a desperate situation.

Speaking now only to the sanction of Bloodofox, Guerillero's 0RR sanction notice on BF's page on 27 July 2020 is rather short on information, the only explanation being "edit warring".[3] BF had made one revert at Falun Gong on 27 July, one revert on 7 july, and one on 5 July, all with explanatory edit summaries. So, clearly the sanction was not for edit warring in the classic sense. Was BF supposed to have got consensus on talk before reverting to Binksternet on 27 July? If so (and if not so, how?), it seems quite draconian to give him an indefinite 0RR restriction for violating the somewhat notorious "consensus required" condition (a condition I myself would never set), especially without any warning or recommendation to self-revert. The "mud fight" issue and Guerillero's post in the ANI thread makes it more understandable; still, seen from BF's point of view, not really understandable at all. Apparently he either rode right over it, or subsequently forgot about it, because he violated it by a revert on 28 February and was promptly blocked for 24 hours by Guerillero, again without any previous request to self-revert. I lifted this block, although it came with the pomp of a "reminder to administrators" that I might "at the discretion of ArbCom" be desysopped if I did, since it's an AE block. (Guerillero has however made it clear he has no interest in taking that road.) Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

• Firstly, the user is entitled to appeal any AE sanction here, and personaly, were I ever hit, that's exactly where I would do so as well. I also get irked by claims that individuals receiving short-sanctions should either be obliged to appeal while the block is on-running, or wait until until it's over - both are, to me, unacceptable limitations. Given the circumstances (that is, long after the restriction was imposed) and non-problematic nature, I feel an immediate 24hr block was unnecessary. I also don't feel this sanction (as vs the base 1RR in place on the article) is beneficial and also advise it being lifted. A good case could be made for the removal of all the 0RR on the page, but I don't know enough about the status of the other editors to make an evidenced call on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• For over a month, what would happen on Falun Gong is some form of Alice would make a controversial change, Bob would revert it, Clara would revert Bob back to Alice's version, Daniel would revert Clara, 24 hours will have passed so Alice reverts Daniel back to her version and the article would be full protected my myself or El_C. After a few go rounds of this and having to indef full protect the article, I placed the most common parties of this under a 0RR to break the back of this behavior. I was able to unprotect the article and it worked until 28 February 2021 when the pattern started up again. My feeling was that a 0RR would be better than a topic ban, because it would allow people to edit the article but stop the edit war. This may have been an over step on my part, but I did it to try to keep a contentious topic stable. As for my block, I have no intention of dragging Bishonen to arbcom over it. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would have no strong objections to lifting the 0RR on the non-SPAs on my list. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  I also think this would be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me Nosebagbear (talk)

Since I was pinged, a couple of notes. I don't think I noticed at the time that Guerillero converted my one-week full protection to an indefinite full protection, then downgraded that to ECP, accompanied by the aforementioned 0RR sanctions to select users. But I don't think it matters (my knowledge of any of that). I trust Guerillero's judgment, overall, in any case. Also noting that WP:AFLG is probably one the AE topic areas I'm least familiar with (to the best of my knowledge, have never logged anything on that front, which says a lot). Finally, to Bish's point about CR — I tend to view it as the nuclear option (same with EBRD, except it having more radiation fallout, IMO). I think I've maybe added CR to pages once or twice (or three times max) during the past year, which, again, says a lot. El_C 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update: has been gracefully lifted by Guerillero (Special:Diff/1010887537), —PaleoNeonate – 16:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Brewers in Nottinghamshire

I've just spent the whole day on a project to help round out the information on brewing in North Nottinghamshire. Someone came along and deleted two profiles already and then marked another for speedy deletion. They say it's promotional. It is not. It was written neutrally. I am not the brewer or in any way associated with the brewer. There was a request to add more information about local brewers - the list page has a huge number of brewers on it without profiles. I feel like I've completely wasted my time. I also feel that the criteria is completely inconsistent because how can you write about any company if it is deemed promotional. And you will note that I followed the stame structure as other brewers who have not been deleted. My understanding was that if there was a problem - eg promotional content - that this would be flagged up on the talk page and discussed. I have no idea how to recover the content that has been deleted. I have no idea how to ask for help. It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here. The profiles are Springhead Fine Ales and Welbeck Abbey Brewery that have been already deleted. SandrinaHatman (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

SandrinaHatman, Hi, I'm sorry to hear about this. I have a keen interest in brewery and pubs and have written or improved several articles on the subject including the bulk of Curious Brewing and Fremlin's Brewery. I had a quick look for sources for the Welbeck Abbey Brewery and see coverage in the Daily Telegraph, Nottingham Post and Worksop Guardian, which should be enough to write a small encyclopedic stub. If the breweries are covered in Amberley-published books, that will help. I'm a bit busy over the weekend, but I'll see what I can do about recreating these articles and get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: aren't you rather crossing the line of your interaction ban with Praxidicae by getting involved with this ? Nick (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So what do we do? We just put up with people deleting things willy nilly Nick? Can you please tell me how you're going to help? I spent hours going through press to find the information and properly cited it all. Thank you to Ritchie for the suggestion but I wanted to contribute profiles of small to mid sized brewers because there are 2000 of them and only a handful have profiles. I'm effectively being prevented from doing that. And the Fremlins article was fab Ritchie and very interesting. I just improved Goachers a bit and will be uploading another photo that my friend took of The Rifle today.SandrinaHatman (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandrinaHatman: What has this to do with Ritchie333's interaction ban, which I was asking Ritchie about ? Nick (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick: Prax is the person who nominated the three articles for deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa and SandrinaHatman: I think the point is if there's a problem with Praxidicae's editing or admining, then anyone without an iban is free to discuss these problems, including I assume SandrinaHatman, and try to help in any way allowed by our policies and guideliens. Anyone with an iban with Praxidicae isn't free to do so, and should stay out of it not least because it leads to these asides which risk distracting from the potential actual issues. That particular comment of Nick was meant to solely focus on the appropriateness of Ritchie333 participating in this discussion and getting involved with articles that were deleted by Praxidicae. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced those were G11 speedies, to be honest. The prose was written pretty neutrally and lists of beers that a brewery sells are not unusual in a brewery article. Whether they're notable or not is quite another matter, but that's not what they were deleted for. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, was wondering about that - we've got I think pretty much every Scottish whisky distillery and would have lists of their bottlings, so are breweries really that much different. Nick (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  There's a lot of ambiguity to what counts as "unambiguous promotion" in practice. As soon as there's a hint of promotion, many patrollers will tag for speedy deletion and many admins will oblige, even if it could have been saved by toning it down and providing better sources. The defence is to use unimpeachable sources, avoid puffery, and not write anything that could be perceived as soliciting sales. Fences&Windows 00:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP

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

Recently I created a page about a Belarusian businessman, it was subsequently nominated for deletion.

I want to make a point of mentioning that one of the criticisms was that corruption of said businessman was not covered in the article and therefore it was WP:COI. See [4], and the points made there by that same user. In other words, some editors found that the content was too neutral and did not include coverage about alleged corruption.

At 14:10, 6 March 2021 I inserted a comment on the deletion discussion page, which I can not reproduce accurately because Nick deleted it, wherein I referred to the subject, as a "wallet" linking an opinion article written by leading Belarusian authority Andrei Sannikov. The origin of my use of the word "wallets" comes from a Google Translation of that article as I do not speak Russian. In it Andrei calls for increased sanctions on powerful business people in Belarus.

After Nick removes that reference, which is quite surprising to me, I respond to Nick at 15:18 by suggesting that there has not been a violation of BLP. Nick does not respond and I continue a debate with another user who initiates a minor edit war about whether or not the Belarusian businessman should be mentioned in the article about Viktor Lukashenko.

At 17:02, almost two hours after I responded to Nick's actions, Nick asks on my talk page that I explain my use of the term wallet. I continue the debate in the minor editing war. But at 17:47, exactly 45 minutes after having asked the question, Nick simply declares:

I'm still waiting for your detailed description of what you (and reliable sources) mean by the term "wallet". I think, since you've not answered but are editing here, we will have to go with a topic ban from BLPs instead. Paperwork incoming at your talk page.

In other words, Nick can not articulate how BLP has been broken, but wants me to clarify my use of terms and not only is he not prepared to wait an hour for my answer (despite having taken almost two hours to follow up to me), he sees the appropriate response to be a ban on editing BLPs for a whole year.

I have raised the issue with Nick on his talk page and he has asked me to note that another admin emphasized to me the importance of not making accusations of corruption but I have not done so which makes the point moot. [[

I have explained to Nick that I have used the terms "politically exposed person" and incidentally "wallet", simply because I read that opinion piece earlier today, in discussions. This does not break BLP.

A politically exposed person is defined by the World Bank as "individuals who are, or have been, entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state or government. The standard setters and a considerable number of jurisdictions also expect financial institutions to treat a prominent public official’s family and close associates as PEPs" and since Zaytsev is a verified associate of Viktor Lukashenko it is reasonable to refer to him as a politically exposed person. Just to further the argument, Vytis Jurkonis says that Zaytsev should be considered a "politically exposed person – or PEP – due to [his affiliation] with the Lukashenko regime." [5].

Even if it was found that I have violated BLP, then I would argue that everything I have done is with good intent and I have argued by case going by due process. Nick on the other hand has shown little regard for process, given no explanations and meted out a disproportionate punishment. --Jabbi (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't disproportionate. You ignored warnings, edit warred, created numerous BLP vios that had to be revision deleted and then continued with WP:TE. This has been explained to you on your talk page, both article talk pages and the AFd in question. I'd recommend a boomerang here. CUPIDICAE💕 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, funny to see you here. Again, what warnings? The edit war you refer to was initiated by you and concluded with you saying you don't care anymore, the content you tried to remove still stands. Can you point to any BLP vio? Is there anything contentious other than the discussion about peps/wallets? Please put forward arguments, and if you can be bothered, include diffs. Otherwise, your contribution is rather like hot air. And, not disproportionate? I have a good record apart from this, is a year a short time? What's the big concern? Finally, the edit war is unrelated to the BLP issue under discussion here. You raised the issue there about content unrelated to Nick's ambiguous charge of BLP and were found to be in the wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is really disruptive now. You literally acknowledged these warnings. We're well into WP:IDHT territory now (and have been for some time) and I'd suggest at this point someone offer an involuntary break until Jabbi can thoroughly read policy, their talk page and reflect on it.

Warning 1 by Nick at 14:49 following Jabbi's BLP violating comments which were subsequently revdelled after my comments to them at the AFD.

Acknowledgement of warning 1 by Jabbi at 15:18

my concern and warning about BLP at 15:50 about a comment made by Jabbi at 15:47 and after a lengthy discussion about BLP, which they also acknowledged being aware of, my comment was a result of concern about them introducing the BLP violating material to a different BLP but about the same subject at AFD.

After their comment about merging said material into Viktor Lukashenko I grew concerned and noticed an existing BLP violation there (one of many which I haven't addressed yet) and adequately explained my removal in my first, second and third edit summaries, as well as on the talk page. To which Jabbi claims I provided no explanation. I even provided the specific text of the BLP policy, despite their earlier acknowledgement of understanding it and highlighted the applicable part twice.

And finally, their final comment on the mainspace BLP indicates their agenda and inability to adhere to WP:NPOV by trying to connect a non-notable businessman to a dictator. How is documenting the son of the dictators involvement with a notable business figure undue weight? --Jabbi (talk) 12:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5). This wasn't an innocent addition of a name to an article, as evidenced by their revdelled comments, comments here and elsewhere, itw as an attempt to again connect the dots to corruption despite lacking any reliable sourcing to do so.

So how many warnings do you need, exactly? This doesn't even delve into your persistent edit warring and POV problems nor your repeated personal attacks. If you really think you weren't adequately warned or this wasn't clearly explained to you by at least two different people, perhaps we should be discussing what level of competence is required to edit BLPs.

If anyone reviewing this needs me to lay out more diffs, I can but I think a review of the general discussion, edits and edit summary as well as their talk page is sufficient evidence that this ban is more than warranted and necessary. CUPIDICAE💕 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, I have conceded in a comment here below that there is one, singular BLP violation. There is one revision deletion on a talk page related to that single violation. Otherwise, a discussion about references to the above Sannikov opinion piece (that is "wallets") can not be considered a BLP violation as it does not imply anything unlawful, only being wealthy and therefore influential because of Lukashenko's patronage. The article about the original business man has now been delete, that is fine, references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty. --Jabbi (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And yet you so markedly still miss the point. references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty. At least we agree on that much, and how appropriate, another BLP violation in this very thread. PS: to your comment below, I am not male and I am not required to be uninvolved to comment here or suggest an outcome. WP:INVOLVED applies to admin actions generally, not discussions regarding disruptive behavior of editors. CUPIDICAE💕 12:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, can I please ask if you are aware of any specific concern about BLP violations on my behalf? I ask because I suspect the only reason you asked me to confirm that I should not allege corruption is because of context of Nick's actions, rather than anything you would attribute directly to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to others, User:Praxidicae, is not an uninvolved editor and his unsupported views here should be disregarded. --Jabbi (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, I would have done the same thing. Revdel followed by an WP:ARBBLP ban, due to prior BLP problems. For admins, the diff in question is here. I'm also struck by the OP's use of the phrase too neutral — I think that's a first for me. Like, what is meant by "too neutral"? Surely it can't be lacking in editorializing. Anyway, just because the owners of Belorussian businesses (in general) may need to keep decent contacts with components of a shady regime, does not necessarily follow that they are doing anything shady themselves.

So, accusing someone of being a money laundering "wallet," doing so on the basis of a machine translation from an unreliable source — that a serious problem. That could be ruinous for such a borderline-notable living person as Alexander Zaytsev. So, fine application of the BLP hammer on Nick's part. Jabbi, more broadly, about righting great wrongs. We have a standard of reliability for sources on the project. We can't pick and choose to lower it for this or that country due to its poor press freedoms performances. That's just not a thing. El_C 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

But in the article in question, there is no direct accusation of money laundering. I should clarify, the implication in the article is that in order to be successful in business in Belarus, you need patronage from Lukashenko. This is a given, therefore, wallets, just mean rich people. Not necessarily criminally so. This is a connotation you are yourself bringing into play. Can you tell me where in the article by Sannikov money laundering is mentioned? And when questioned about my intentions, I explained my understanding of the term as being equivalent as pep. Is then a year's ban not disproportionate? --Jabbi (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I realize it was said in the deletion discussion, but, you know, reporters can click on links. Everything said on-wiki is public and subject to BLP. El_C 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, where is the link between wallet and money laundering? I don't know where you get that from. Taking circumstances into account, i.e. this is not a wilful defamation, is a year's ban normal? What I am trying to say, Sannikov's article does not suggest money laundering. What's the problem with a rich guy being called a wallet? --Jabbi (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you had clicked on the link I provided you could have seen discussion on the afd where a user accuses me of making "the article is not even close to be neutral. No words of corruption. See at least one source on corruption..." What I meant by "too neutral" which is clumsily worded, is that I did not include sources on corruption. --Jabbi (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You said, and I quote (in part): in the article I have linked independent journalism covering probable money laundering by Zaytsev in neighbouring Lithuania (underline is my emphasis). El_C 04:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But this is unrelated to the discussion around wallets. That article is about Zaytsev's dealings in Lithuania. [6]. This has got nothing to do with the BLP vio Nick based his decision on. --Jabbi (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. But a year's ban. That's a bit heavy. --Jabbi (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I, actually, would not have set the duration to expire, but I guess Nick is a nicer guy. El_C 04:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds strangely vindictive and counter-productive given the circumstances. That fact that you justify Nick's actions using personal characteristics rather than objective facts is disappointing. --Jabbi (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Arbitrary and unreasonable," even? Oh well, at least it's brief and forthright. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, there are several mitigating factors I contend; 1) a prior discussion in the same vein, 2) it is a talk page, 3) I have shown caution in main space edits, 4) a long history of valid work and 5) rather clear indication of good will. I understand if you disagree but to me this matters. If there is strong intent to spread misinformation here, accounts can be circumvented as I am sure you realise. I respect the consensus here as elsewhere, but again, I think this is disproportionate. --Jabbi (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, Jabbi, I feel that bringing up mitigating circumstances (of whatever nature) sidesteps the point here. Which is to always err on the side of a conservative BLP approach, especially for borderline-notable living persons (i.e. WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:BURDEN). Let's not forget that there is a real human being at the other end one of this. One who, again, is not even remotely notable as, say, a head of state or high-end celebrity. Hoping this salient point resonates this time. El_C 13:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, the thing about setting a clock is that it's obviously less useful if the sanctioned individual doesn't appreciate the gravity behind the violation, which greatly increases the likelihood for the violation to repeat at some point after the sanction lapses. To me, that's sort of a fact. El_C 12:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse sanction. Jabbi| is making this all about them. This is about protecting BLP subjects from possible defamation, protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, and ultimately, protecting Jabbi. Clearly they do not understand what they did wrong or the consequences. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: You seem not to have read my arguments about what edits and references to sources said. You endorse a year's ban for a single violation done when there is good intent? --Jabbi (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am having trouble understanding your sense of justice. I have many thousand edits on my record, mainly on my Icelandic Wikipedia. Never had a vio. And now there is a single vio, just one, where I use the word probable. There is no repeat offence as the use of the term "wallet" can not be seen as a BLP vio, or else explain how. --Jabbi (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

the fact that you think it’s over one edit and one word is indicative of the problem here. Your edits on other projects are irrelevant, policies are different and certain articles and categories of articles are authorized for discretionary sanctions here by arbcom motion and community consensus. You were repeatedly informed of this, acknowledged it, said you understood and continued anyway. This isn’t about justice, it’s about disruption and protection. This ban was necessary to stop the disruption and protect the integrity of the project and biographies of living people. CUPIDICAE💕 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, maybe badgering the respondents to your own appeal isn't the best look, or is conducive to it succeeding (even in ameliorating it somewhat)...? Just throwing it out there. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jabbi, there is no justice at Wikipedia. We aren't interested in justice. We are not a police force, or court of law. We are interested in solutions and fairness, which are very different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel unjustly treated here. I think I will cease participating completely in Wikipedia. As a parting wish I would just ask that someone finish Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alexander Lukashenko/1. Thanks for everyone who's contributed here. Goodbye and good luck --Jabbi (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel wronged to such an extent that I feel I have to defend myself. I hope everyone understands. My responses are sometimes curt, or sarcastic, this is to my detriment and I can only apoligize for that. However, like I say, I feel that some statements here are factually incorrect and others value judgements that I disagree with but respect. --Jabbi (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering the violation, coupled with the tone and tenor of many of your responses here and elsewhere (their aggressive and dismissive nature as well as their WP:BLUDGEON'ing frequency), I think you've been treated with general courtesy, overall. Being blunt, at times, is just par for the course for these sort of discussions. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a social-justicy safe space, where discussions inevitably become muted as contributors are forced to walk on eggshells. I was gonna leave your above comment unanswered, but seeing as you still continue to engage here, even after this announcement of your departure from en, I thought it'd be worthwhile to set the record straight. El_C 13:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What I've corrected is the accusation of several BLP violations. I am content you are referring to a single violation. And to be clear, I understand what it is I did that broke policy and why. I will learn from that if I decide to edit again. I do not need a safe-space, but being up against many and feel wronged in some way can be frustrating. --Jabbi (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, what I got from this thus far is that you've committed multiple and egregious BLP violations, even if these only concerned this one borderline-notable living person (by way of WP:BLPCRIME). Possibly, there are other BLP violations which concern other living persons...? I don't know. El_C 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You've not spoken of this before. Nick certainly only reverted one edit. Is there anything specific you think violates BLP? Now I don't want to argue ad nauseam but charges such as these have to be 100%. My argument is that in the removed edit there is certain context put forward that violates BLP, I accept and understand that, it was a mistake. Consecutive references to the Sannimov article, taken on their own, are however not such violations. Or do you disagree? --Jabbi (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not familiar enough with your editing history to comment further on that at this time. So, I'll let those who do take it from here. But these were egregious BLPCRIME violations, which involved multiple revisions requiring revdels. For whatever that's worth. El_C 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick only removes 2 successive edits made in a short timespan by me as can be in the talk history. There's no multiple revisions. The way you use that word egregious repeatedly is a bit dramatic. remember, in my quote I say probable, emphasis mine. --Jabbi (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, only a passing familiarity, but you can now add an additional "wallet" revdel to the mix (admins only). Anyway, I'm not sure why, after everything, you think calling the response to your BLPCRIME violations "dramatic" helps your case here, but whatever. El_C 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll be fine as long as you don't use it the third time. I'm not making light of the singular BLP violation, it's just that I work at a university library and I rarely come across that word. No one notified me of additional rev-dels. But this brings us back a full circle to my original question, Why is it a BLP to call someone a wallet with reference to Sannikov's article. Anyway, thanks for your time. --Jabbi (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll be fine, regardless. In answer to your question: it was because of the money laundering connotations. Also noting several additional revdels, but I won't bother linking to them, this time. El_C 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What money laundering connotations? If the only mention of a BLPCRIME is in the first original revdel by Nick. What connotation is there to money laundering if I am only referring to Belarusian business people described in Sannikov's piece as wallets? Have you really thought this through C? This is the question I put forward in the beginning of this thread. I'm glad we've finally reached a place where we can discuss it. Also, how many revdels did you commit and how many are there in total if Nick did one and let me know on my talk page? --Jabbi (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Like, hinting of playing host to a shady crypto wallet for whomever...? I dunno. Doesn't matter, sounds shady, is the point. Also, why do you need me to count the revdels for you? I don't really understand what you're asking me. El_C 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother reading a translation of the Russian article, but from the context the reference to wallet seems to have troubling connotations. It suggests at a minimum crony capitalism, where these business people are benefiting from corruption in the country e.g. being awarded state contracts, and not because they are truly the best business but simply because they are friends with the right people. In return, these business people help out the politicians and their families financially as needed. So while the politicians may not themselves have tremendous amounts of money in their bank accounts or whatever, they have access to tremendous amounts of money via the business people i.e. their wallets. Probably this money probably isn't just used for direct personal benefit of politicians, sometimes e.g. around election time or otherwise when there's need to try and show something to the people, it may come back to the people in the form of projects supported by the state or pet projects of some politicians e.g. to act as their legacy, which the state can't afford. So instead these "generous" business people and their companies are the ones who finance these projects, ignoring the fact they are primarily rich of the backs of the state anyway, so it's really ultimately mostly state money even if the ownership is in some companies name. Again I can't be sure if this is what the author of the article meant since I don't understand Russian and it's risky to try to understand an article based on a machine translation, worse when you don't understand the social-political background behind it. It seems clear that Jabbi lacks that too though. It makes no sense to suggest there's no shady connotations. Rich business people don't act as "wallets" for politicians if they're not getting anything in return, there has to be some quid pro quo. At least it must come in the form of no persecution, but frankly that suggests a power imbalance which is unlikely i.e. the business people do have tremendous amounts of power and aren't likely satisfied with just being allowed to exist, they must be getting something more in return. It may very well be that it's impossible to be a sufficient successful business person in Belarus with getting involved in that. If it is, then it is, this can be mentioned in relation to specific individuals if supported by suitable reliable sources. Otherwise no. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The op-ed is short and general, does not refer to specific individuals or suggest criminal activity. If I may quote recent academic paper, I can with ease provide more if required: "One can witness the politicisation of SOEs, their role being a source of resources to be distributed for meeting political goals. The politicisation of SOEs à rebours is paramount, their rents originate from their privileged position set up by the state – although SOEs seem to play a passive part here (unlike, e.g. in Poland – Kozarzewski and Bałtowski, 2017), being mainly an object of the state’s economic populism actions. The latter seems to be one of the cornerstones of Belarusian economic policy, with the authorities trying to create the widest possible clientelist base." and also: "State authorities may give large private enterprises a monopolistic position on the market in exchange for profit sharing with the state (going far beyond ordinary taxation).". Make no mistake, Belarus is an authoritarian state. Moreover, as I have repeatedly explained, in this specific case, I was referring to a business man who has a verified background of being an aide to Viktor Lukashenko, making him fall under the definition of a politically exposed persons, which is also the view of Vytis Jurkonis, an academic who specialises in the politics of the area [7]. --Jabbi (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, as Nil Einne rightly points out, the meaning of "wallet" in the article is highly contextualised. I have however, from the very beginning, consistently explained what meaning I attributed to it, see: here & other now references to wallets deleted. --Jabbi (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally, have you considered at all the possibility that in Russian, "wallet" is simply slang for a rich dude? --Jabbi (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A further source, from 2011: "Corruption. The country’s continuous push for liberalization of the business climate was offset by the strengthening position of the Belarusian KGB. The latter has emerged as a top patronage network in the system of power, capable of eliminating bureaucratic competitors for the distribution of rents, as well as obstructing the prosecution of those suspected of graft. Belarus’s corruption rating remains unchanged at 6.00." The most recent Freedom House report states: "Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective? 1 / 4 The state controls at least 70 percent of the economy, and graft is encouraged by a lack of transparency and accountability in government. There are no independent bodies to investigate corruption cases, and graft trials are typically closed. Presidential clemency has been issued occasionally to free convicted corrupt officials, some of whom Lukashenka has returned to positions of authority." --Jabbi (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not deliberately consistently misindenting C but thanks for correcting it. Now that there is some actual contextual discussion of the BLP violation, which El_C has stated are several and serious if I understand him correctly, in light of the above basic facts about political reality in Belarus, where, the higher you go, the likelihood of serious collusion and corruption is clearly high, how can it be considered wrong to use a colloquial term from a Russian op-ed that, at best, has an ambiguous meaning, in any case, suggesting something shady rather than downright illegal when it is shown that this is the reality in Belarus? Also, which I am getting tired of repeating, (Redacted). --Jabbi (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? In a thread about potential BLP violations, you're putting unsourced BLP violations? I'm usually one to sit out conversations like this (and/or be civil), but seriously... what are you smoking? Primefac (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not on purpose, sorry. But this can be gathered anyway from the context. --Jabbi (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement: I have decided to take sound advice and stop from contributing further for a while. This discussion can be considered closed. I understand what violations I have made. Sorry. --Jabbi (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Czechia RFC instead of RM

Hi, is there any chance an uninvolved admin could have a look at Talk:Czech_Republic#RfC_about_the_name_of_this_country? There have been several RM requests over the years that have consistently rejected the name Czechia as the title, but now an RFC has been started on the same topic, which looks like an attempt to move the article without going through the proper WP:RM process. Several editors have commented that the RFC lacks standing and is the wrong venue for a requested move, and given that it's the wrong venue it's hard to see that a consensus for a page move could ever be formed in that way. I think the RFC should be either closed or converted into a proper RM, instead of chewing up editor time in this confusing state until its expiry date of early April, but I've been quite involved in RMs on that subject in the past so am not able to perform an early closure myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Argh! Same. El_C 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Double Czech and mate! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The response to your 2nd close is exactly why I do not mention the merits in a procedural close. Nothing good can ever come from it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, those responses would likely had come in some way or another, anyway. And it's best to be straight up about everything. Through the years, these perennial Czechia proposals always attract WP:SPAs and inexperienced users. That's par for the course. They're welcome to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE it here, but I doubt much will come of it. El_C 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And these proposals always end with the same outcome, because of the English language being what it is — as opposed to, say, Hebrew, where I use צ'כיה pretty much exclusively, due to Hebrew being what it is. Doesn't matter that the Name of the Czech Republic will continue to state in its lead that: most English speakers use [the] Czech Republic in all contexts, therefore reaffirming the WP:COMMONNAME. Shouldn't really be much of a Through the Looking-Glass surprise, and yet almost certainly will continue to reoccur on the English Wikipedia with some regularity. Maybe there should be a FAQ combined with a move moratorium to throttle these proposals a bit...? I'll leave that decision to others, however. El_C 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there is a FAQ, which does speak to that. Silly me. El_C 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fine and good, but the reason for closing the discussion has nothing to do with any of that. It was procedural only, since you need to use RM and not RFC for changing the name of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, obviously our reasons differ and I opt for a wider view, but I suppose it's of little moment at this juncture... El_C 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on which of these approaches is the correct one, but thanks to both for looking into the matter.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There have been a succession of pagename-discussion moratoria on that talkpage, which have done a good job of allowing other editorial discussions to occur. Three weeks ago (and less than two weeks before this RFCish thing was filed) I closed a separate discussion Talk:Czech Republic#Use of short-form name in article (separate issue from title) regarding in-article usage. These have been raised for years, with never a consensus to change and not even usually any strong new evidence. But substantial time-sink, AGF failures, ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, threats to IAR, etc. I propose to implement another moratorium...say for one year. Any objections (or other thoughts about timeframe)? DMacks (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not personally. However, it may be considered fair to allow a new RM before applying a new 1-year moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right about what's fair. To help understand my position, I'll first say I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on this particular naming issue before and I don't plan to anytime soon. I would oppose a moratorium. Given that the RfC was improper, I don't think we should take much from it about the current state of consensus. People may have felt it would be closed given it was improper and there was no reason to waste their time reading, researching and commenting. And so I don't see a good reason for a new 1 year moratorium. Indeed in some ways it's harmful, since we've had no RM yet but technically there's been a few months when one could be started, we risk sending the message that if you want to have an RM, start one the instant the moratorium ends just in case a new one is imposed without a RM. However I'd fully support a 2-3 year moratorium if there is another proper RM, whatever the outcome. I would discourage anyone from starting an RM unless they believe there is some good reason why consensus may change, most likely a change in what sources support. Discussions about the name short of an RM which aren't likely to achieve anything can be ignored or closed as appropriate even without a moratorium. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're not suggesting there should be an RM, but you are also against imposing a moratorium? But that just encourages threads of the sort we've seen here, where people continually discuss the title and even look for other ways than an RM to get it changed, yet involved editors like myself aren't allowed to shut those down because there's no moratorium in place. I think a "soft" moratorium would be best here - all title discussion should be banned, unless it takes the form of a formal RM. And if someone does start a formal RM is started, then it should be a requirement that it present substantive evidence that the situation has genuinely changed since the last RM in late 2019. An RM that simply rehashes the old arguments should be closed quickly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I, actually, think we should do what I did last year with my AE-mandated RM approach for Kyiv (then still Kiev): announce a fortcoming move moratorium in advance (though, with Kyiv, the length was provisional at that point), which ended up being one year in length, but implement it after one more RM (which, for Kyiv, was the 15th RM), an RM which would be set to run the normal length. That is to say: I'm against an early closure on content grounds, as in having the closer decide on the contemporaneous or lack thereof nature of the sources brought to the table as an early-close provision. Otherwise, RMs are brief (compared to RfCs), so one week of that, followed by a one year break between any future subsequent RMs. That sounds like a sound plan to me. El_C 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That Kyiv discussion is a good datapoint that common usage in English sources can change over time, and WP naming changes accordingly when that happens. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And all it took there was 13 years and 15 RMs! El_C 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

With the successful one pushed through by a topic-banned user evading the topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Coincidence? //Puts on tinfoil hat! El_C 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Storm598

Storm598 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has been here for three months, and in that short time has made 815 edits and accumulated a talk page full of warnings and disputes. They have been blocked once. Looking down their contributions page, a large percentage of their edits have been reverted, and I have found more which were in need of reverting, which I have done. There remain others in topic areas I'm not familiar with, so I'd like to suggest that other editors take a look at their contributions and make whatever corrections or reversions are appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is unfair. It is a completely different matter that there have been frequent disputes and that editing is wrong. If you edit the original controversial subject mainly, editorial disputes will naturally arise. However, in the future, unless I bring the source first, I will do as little dispute editing as possible.--Storm598 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Storm598 has now posted on their user page: "I have a lot of headaches, so I won't edit the English Wikipedia for a while. (at least one month)" I still believe that an informal investigation of their editing would be worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Headaches are a common recurring symptom of ANI flu.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Now they've posted "retired", that the account is "deprecated" and "I don't want to open a new account for a while." If they have an account in (at this moment) good standing, under what policy would they be allowed to make a new account? Something seems fishy here -- the moment some attention is given to a 3 month old account, it gives up the ghost. What are they concerned about being found out about the account? Is a checkuser needed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They aren't under any sanction, but they are under discussion at a admin noticeboard so retiring this account and starting a new one would not be permitted under WP:CLEANSTART. P-K3 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Considering this discussion on Talk:California Democratic Party and some other edits that they've made today, I'm very close to asking for an AP2 TB for Storm598. Their edits are badly informed, and most of them have been reverted by miself and others. I'll wait to see if they take my suggestion to avoid that topic area or not, and will return with additional evidence if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is very unfair. I participated in Talk and didn't insist on editing until the end.--Storm598 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Participating in the discussion is not the issue here, it's the fact that in your participation, you made it quote clear that your understanding of American politics is very poor, and that your sources of information are not appropriate or reliable. For instance, on Blue Dog Democrat, you insisted on a citation for adding "Social conservatism" to their ideology in the infobox, when anyone who knows anything about American politics knows that this is the case. You really don;t have a clue about the subject, and yet you feel free to edit substantially in the area, even though many of your edits have been reverted. In my judgment, you simply do not have the competence needed to edit in the AP2 subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Check out the history of the Blue Dog Coalition document. (r1004387792 → r1004930554) Rather, I have clearly improved what had been misrepresented as "Fiscal responsibility" for more than a few years as "Fiscal conservatism". If I hadn't improved this, would you have been able to add a "Social conservatism"? I just think that Blue Dogs are financial conservatism, not social conservatism. I know enough about American politics.--Storm598 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you think that is a very good indication that you do not know enough about American politics to be editing in that topic area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's also of concern to me that Storm598, even as an editor of only 3 days tenure, was creating brand new categories without discussion and then populating them, somethionig that they continue to do. [8]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken insulted me with false information in the Law and Justice article Talk. # I think this discussion is also cherry picking for Beyond My Ken to penalize me for editing Wikipedia.--Storm598 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote was "The consensus in the discussion above is crystal clear, "far-right" is well-supported, and there are no grounds for re-opening the discussion. It appears to me that Storm598 is being disruptive as the result of a personal POV." This was after you attempted to open a new thread about whether the Law and Justice party of Poland was "right-wing" or not, when you had just opened a previous discussion days earlier and comments were running against you in it. That was unnecessary and disruptive, and your persistence seemed to me to be an indication that you have a personal ideological stake in the "correct" decision being made -- otherwise why not simply let the discussion play out and see what happened? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As for "cherry picking", I have invited other editors to look at the totality of your editing for themselves. When a significant portion of an editor's contributions have been reverted by other editors, that's a pretty good indication that their editing is not up to snuff, which I would like other editors to investigate for themselves. The examples I have posted here are simply examples of some of the worst of your problematic editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My editing was controversial, but I never took the POV's view at all. Rather, if you carefully look at the history of all the documents I edited, it is clear that you did "cherry picking." #, # → #, # → # think what Beyond My Ken is doing to me is undermining me. According to Beyond My Ken, it is no different from saying that many Wikipedia users have a POV perspective. I am entitled to edit American political articles.--Storm598 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not if your ignorance causes your editing to be disruptive. An editor such as myself shouldn't have to check over every article you added to the category you created Category:Proto-feminists to see if the article should properly be in that category, and find that the vast majority of them -- added by you -- shouldn't have been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The timing of Proto-feminism is also understood to be controversial in academia. I believe that female activists of the era before the term feminism was born should also be considered Proto-feminists. Because during the French Revolution, the term "feminism" did not exist. But since I'm not as stubborn as you think I am, I'm not going to undo the articles that removed Category:Proto-feminists.--Storm598 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You know the complete opposite. Check the history of the document. PiS had been written "Right-wing" for quite a long time, and I tried to change it to "Far-right".--Storm598 (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake, I typed the wrong thing. Sue me. But you were told that "right-wing" is well-supported. Where, exactly, did I say that your personal PoV was rightist? Editing from a personal PoV is bad no matter what that PoV is, because it has a tendency to skew the neutrality of your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the PiS document was agreed "Right-wing" by public opinion before I created this account. # That's why I held a second debate.--Storm598 (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying "document". Wikipedia has "articles", not "documents". And "right-wing" wasn't determined by "public opinion", it was determined by WP:CONSENSUS, which is central to Wikipedia's editing process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

AP2 topic ban

• I think it'd be better to do it like this. From now on, I will not edit articles related to American politics for a month. And after that, I will be careful not to collide and edit it more flexibly. Why don't you decide after that?

Of course, I don't think I'm ignorant of American politics, and I think Beyond My Ken is undermining me, but I think my editing has been a little aggressive lately.--Storm598 (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you agree that a topic ban from AP2 is appropriate, to the extent that you're voluntarily going to adhere to one for a month, then I think there's a prima facie case for a non-voluntary AP2 TBan to be imposed by an admin for whatever period of time they think is appropriate. (One month is an unusually short period of time for a topic ban. A year with the right to appeal after 6 months is more typical.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your AP2 topic ban request is very unfair. But I don't want to continue this conflict with you, so I mean I won't edit AP2 for a while. I fully understand U.S. politics, and I have not done anything wrong to deserve the AP2 topic ban.--Storm598 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing with AP2 topic ban. It's just that I fully understand American politics, but it's not my main contribution, so I mean that I will avoid editing AP2 documents for more than a month. This is purely voluntary and does not require any ban.--Storm598 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly, I don't think there's any reason for me to get 'AP2 topic ban'. But just that I won't edit the AP2 document if possible for a while. Do you understand?

This just means that I have lost interest in contributing to American political documents, and there is no reason why I should be banished in American politics.--Storm598 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, there's a reason: you don't know much about it, but you think that you do. That's much more potentially dangerous to the quality of our product then the person who knows nothing, and, knowing that they know nothing, stays away from the topic area. With you, someone is going to have to check every edit you make to make sure that you're not transferring the incorrect information you're getting from "Korea's biggest blog" to our articles. That's why you need to be AP2 topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, let's turn it down a notch. BMK, I think you've made your point, there's no need to make this about Storm598's level of knowledge at this point. What's important here is whether Storm598 is able to abide by verifiability policy and edit constructively. To that extent, I'm concerned by the discussion at Talk:California Democratic Party, specifically here, where they appear to be advocating for content changes entirely based on their own original opinions and arguments, and here where they make an argument about changing the political ideology classification based on the state of Korean Wikipedia. Storm598, you need to review our policy regarding original research. If you do not abide by it, it will result in restrictions on your editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I understood what you said. In the future, we may edit American political documents occasionally, but we will be careful not to violate the verifiability policy.--Storm598 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while Storm598's editing of AP2 articles is a problem, it's not the only problem. For instance, Storm598 has been removing the Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea from numerous articles, many of which are obviously appropriate targets for it. Their edits have been reverted not just by me, but by other editors as well, at least one of which has become so fed by with Storm598's behavior, that he refuses to discuss with them on their onw talk page insisting -- as I do -- that such discussions must take place only on article talk pages. [9].

The more I dig into Storm598's edits, the more problems I find.

At several points in this discussion Storm598 has said that their editing had recently become "too aggressive", or words to that effect, but I think this had been the state of Storm598's editing from the very beginning. This is an editor who created their account on 8 December 2020, [10], and less then three days later began creating political categories and populating them, and a few days letter was moving articles [11], based on their own perceptions of Taiwanese politics. (They moved Liberalism and progressivism in Taiwan to Progressivism in Taiwan.) That is very aggressive behavior from a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from Jang Jun-ha's problem, is there a policy that new users should not create political categories? And did I make a 'POV' contribution to Taiwanese politics?--Storm598 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

U.S. political documents say they will be careful not to violate verifiability policies. Why are you leading me to another problem? I don't want to cause any more disputes with you.--Storm598 (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that your editing is inherently causing disruption. And, no, there is no policy that new users should not create new categories -- although there probably should be -- but if, in the fullness of time, your editing is called into question, then your earlier very aggressive choice to begin by doing things that most edtiors don't get to for quite a while raises serious questions about both your judgment and your provenance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There appear to be some WP:CIR issues here that go beyond the scope of an AP2 topic ban, based on both a limited sampling of their contributions and their comments here, beyond simple linguistic difficulties (of which I'm assuming their use of "we" was an example, rather than being indicative of a shared account). Their understanding of basic policy seems inadequate for some of the edits that they're making. I'd like some confirmation that they have a basic grasp of our verifiability, weight, and reliable sourcing requirements. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer this. However, I will be more careful in editing English Wikipedia in the future. I have often revealed reliable sources when adding new content, but for the time being, I will refrain from controversial edits and show you that I have the basic ability to edit WP.--Storm598 (talk)

Storm598, that's a good start, and I'd oppose blocking on those grounds. I still think that perhaps a time-limited topic ban from American Politics might be good for you, as per what Elijahandskip said. By "time-limited", I mean something of a limited duration, that's just meant to keep you away from a topic area you're passionate about for a little bit. We're all continually learning how to be better editors here, even the most experienced users. Would you agree to a voluntary time-limited topic ban from the AP2 area, so you can focus on other articles, and demonstrate your competency? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment to Storm598. So I am an outside editor who doesn’t know too much about the events that took place. Storm598, a T-Ban can be very useful. From a brief read, it appears this is similar to what I thought for a long time. I am actually currently under T-Ban on Post-1992 US politics for 6 months, and I am also the editor who started a major (60k+ byte) US politics article back in October as well as the editor who started a 55 page long Rfc (politics related). My T-Ban started on March 2, and sense then, I have felt kind of good. From the look of the discussion, you will have a T-Ban, so prepare for it and don’t bury yourself any more than you have too. Right now would be an idea time to just walk away from the discussion and accept the discussion once it is finished. If you do that, you will probably help yourself in the long run. Also, since you seem to be similar to how I thought even as little as a week ago, feel free to message me on my talk page. I would be happy to mentor you and help you become a better Wikipedia editor. Hopefully this helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Beyond My Ken, just one thing--this isn't Facebook. I see your opponent deflecting in one way after another, like in that "Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" discussion on their talk page, but please don't feel the need to respond to every little twist and turn--especially not here. You know, from experience, that the longer an ANI thread gets the less likely it is to get resolved. Let the community handle it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies OK, I'll defer to the advice from you and Rosguil and back off, looking for the community to deal with Storm598's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Adminship term length RFC

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Request for comment/Adminship term length to discuss adding an term length to adminship, and what to do at the end of an admin's term. Worm^TT(talk) 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, how many times do we need to go round this loop? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts

Template:Formerly

After an unsuccessful attempt at discussion, I am seeking community review of two WP:DRV closures by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 (closed)

In the Squad case, I closed the AfD as "delete". King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Overturn to redirect. Those who !voted "delete" at the AfD have failed to advance an argument as to why a redirect would not be appropriate." In doing so, King of Hearts failed to properly do their job as DRV closer, which is to assess whether consensus exists at DRV to overturn an AfD closure, and if so, to implement that consensus. Instead, they merely inserted their own view about how the AfD should properly have been closed, without even attempting to assess the consensus of the DRV discussion (i.e., they cast a supervote). If they had done their job, they would have either found that there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, or even consensus to endorse it. In both cases, the article's history would have remained deleted, consistent with the AfD consensus. This would not have prevented the later creation of the redirect from Squad (app) that now exists and with which I agree.

King of Hearts' comments indicate that they severely misunderstand applicable deletion policy if they insist that "There is no such thing as a consensus to delete at AfD per se". But in our policy and practice there is indeed such a thing as a "delete" consensus at AfD. It means that the history of the deleted article is suppressed. All attempts to change policy to the contrary have failed (cf. Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal)). That was the consensus at both the AfD and probably also at the DRV. I am concerned that King of Hearts is attempting to reintroduce such failed proposals, which do not have community consensus, by misusing the DRV process.

Similarly, in the United Airlines Flight 1175 case, Black Kite closed the AfD as "delete", and King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD." But in this case as well, opinions in the DRV discussion were divided and there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. And again, King of Hearts did not even attempt to assess consensus but merely cast a supervote in favor of what they considered the right outcome.

As a collaborative project, Wikipedia works only if all, especially admins, respect consensus and the deletion process. Admins must not use their special user rights (in this case, the undelete right) to bypass this process. I therefore propose that the community overturns these DRV closures and lets another admin close these DRV discussions. Sandstein 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the participants in previous discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@MER-C, Dial911, MrsSnoozyTurtle, Luciapop, Cunard, Mazurkevin, SmokeyJoe, S Marshall, Andrew Davidson, SportingFlyer, Hut 8.5, Stifle, Cuoxo, and Spartaz: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) and/or its deletion review. Sandstein 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite, Andy Dingley, SportingFlyer, Ansh666, Eherot, IJBall, Stormy clouds, A lad insane, Petebutt, Ahunt, Dannythewikiman, ZLEA, Mangoe, Jax 0677, Andrewgprout, Dfadden, George Ho, Dingruogu, Jetstreamer, AEMoreira042281, EnjoysButter, Champion, Davey2010, Donaldd23, DonFB, Icewhiz, and Samf4u: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175. Sandstein 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to the deletion review of the above. Sandstein 12:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that I was left off of the notifications, not sure if anyone else was. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• To me, the first close does indeed read as a superclose - there isn't a consensus in the DRV that that position was held, and if the closer felt it was the case, they should have !voted themselves to stress that position. I would reverse it. The second close, however, is significantly more legitimate. In base numbers, it's somewhat "no consensus", but the DRV policy strength arguments made by the the restore supporters is significantly clearer. I may have gone NC myself, but I don't believe the close was bad. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The first close reads as a !supervote to me too - There wasn't any consensus to overturn and if KoH felt the AFD shouldn't of been closed he should of stated that in the DRV as opposed to closing/overturning. The second one - Opinions were divided and sources were also provided although a discussion then occurred over those sources. Personally it's a balance of No Consensus and Restore so don't really see a problem with that one. First DRV was wrong tho. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was involved in both of these and I was surprised by the outcome of both of them, especially the Squad (app) outcome. On numbers alone, that was an endorse/decline 5, relist 2. The United Airlines 1175 discussion was closer to an endorse/restore no consensus. I really only have an issue with that because the topic falls far below our notability guidelines for aviation incidents, it's turned into an exceptionally crufty article which completely overplays the incident, and I've been criticised for taking it to AfD immediately by two !voters in the new AfD. Even given my involvement, I'd recommend overturning the Squad (app) one. I'd like the United Airlines one to be vacated, but I'm even more involved in that one. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both look like super votes to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the validity of them individually, there were rather a lot of challenges to King of Hearts' AfD closes last year, by amongst others experienced editors TonyBallioni, PMC, ArnoldReinhold, HighKing, and JBL: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. I can see he's been inactive for long periods of time since 2014, perhaps this should be taken as a gentle suggestion to refresh himself on our current norms on closing and consensus? – Joe (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That is an additional concern, Joe - the points often aren't unreasonable as such, but in quite a few (not all) of the cases linked to somewhere in this discussion would belong as !votes, not closes. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of the drv closes should be vacated and reclosed. KoH’s closes can be added as votes, because that is what they are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• A redirect is fine as people searching for Squad App will get to know (more) about its acquisition by Twitter. However, like Sandstein I also find KoH's DRV closure decision is out of line. A deleted article's history remains suppressed. The discussion here is about KoH's DRV closures and I feel they are not shy of casting Supervotes. Dial911 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• The first DRV doesn't look like a consensus to redirect at all. It looks more like a consensus to endorse the original close - I see there is an attribution/copyright issue but the endorsers clearly considered that aspect. Ditto on the second DRV - it's clear that not everybody agrees that the new sources justify restoration, one could call that a consensus to endorse or no consensus but it's not a consensus to restore, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both of them are supervotes, especially the first one. I closed the Flight 1175 one and there was no other way it could be closed - if significant information has since come to light the correct close would be "Endorse but allow recreation". I see that the subsequent AfD is turning into a trainwreck as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination)) as WP:AIRCRASH ones often do. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• If I were to have voted myself in either the initial discussion or the DRV for the Squad case, I would have voted to either turn to a redirect or to relist the original AFD debate. That being said, I would not have closed the discussion as KoH did. As an admin, if we have our own opinion on the discussion at hand, we should vote and not close the discussion ourselves. There's nothing wrong with thinking the consensus was incorrect, and to vote accordingly. There is something wrong with closing a discussion against consensus. I would overturn that one. The second one, on the UAL Flight 1175, it's close enough to the border that it's within range of closing either way; I think that one is okay as it. --Jayron32 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps I should not have used the word "overturn" to describe the result of the Squad (app) DRV. However, the fact of the matter is that consensus is not required to create a redirect at a previously deleted page, or to restore the history under a redirect (assuming that the deletion was not for content-related violations). As neither the AfD nor the DRV supports a consensus that the redirect is inappropriate, the correct course of action is to allow the redirect. But why so much fuss over the words used rather than the end result, which Sandstein admits would have been the same? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Under what policy does the creation of a redirect nullify the previous AfD deletion of earlier revisions? You state that "consensus is not required" for such an undeletion, but WP:UDP doesn't support this claim (nor does Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, which refers to UDP). Unilaterally overturning a consensus-based and consensus-endorsed deletion should not be done lightly and needs a much better reason than a claim that "consensus is not required" without anything to back this up. Fram (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like this practice is supported by consensus, but no one has thought to add it to an official policy page. It might be worth reopening this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  You have more people here in this discussion saying that it isn't OK than was in that discussion from 8 years ago. Apparently, consensus has changed. --Jayron32 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  So let's open an RfC to clarify the policy then. I've been following that interpretation since there has not been any consensus since to overturn it, but let's decide as a community what the right interpretation is once and for all and enshrine it in policy. I'm happy to follow whatever is decided going forward. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't think I ever said you weren't doing what you thought to be correct; but it seems clear that the practice is not well supported. Policy documents practice and does not determine it, and you have a LOT of very experienced admins here saying that one should not be restoring an article history of a deleted article; we don't have any written policy that even says you should be doing so, and you've pointed to an 8-year-old discussion with minimal participation that was not documented anywhere obvious. Based on the fact that basically no one knew such a policy existed, except you and the few people that participated in the discussion, it wasn't documented anywhere, and that enough admins clearly don't see it as practice, it would be advisable to stop doing it. Of course, if we need to have an entire RFC just to force one admin to stop doing something no one else does, we can, but do we need to??? --Jayron32 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Are they saying that because this is what they believe policy to be, or what they believe policy should be? It appears that I am outnumbered on the first front, but I think it is a rather sensible thing to allow restoration of non-sensitive content underneath an existing page (whether article or redirect) and it's worth a discussion to see where the community stands on the merits of the issue, i.e. I think they might be amenable on the second front. But either way, it enshrines it in policy so that there will be no more disagreements in interpretation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  The 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion was about how to handle discussions where the community consensus was to redirect an article. That doesn't apply here. But you already knew that. So I'm not exactly sure why you brought it up, since you already knew it was about a different situation than the one we are discussing today. --Jayron32 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion is irrelevant, because it's about history-only restores. You recreated the redirect yourself (with an obvious supervote which re-litigated the AfD, which isn't allowed) and unnecessarily restored the history with it, which practically no-one asked for. Even if that had not been the case, it was a seven-year old discussion at a backwater page in which only three people supported, and the relevant question to this issue ("does this include history under redirects?") went unanswered. Black Kite (talk)

  So let's have the discussion then. I followed what I believed was a reasonable interpretation of policy, and apparently there is disagreement here. So let's clarify it and establish a policy for history undeletion for the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  King of Hearts, the end result is not the same. If you had correctly closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "endorse", and then created a redirect over the deleted article, there would have been no problem. The problem is that (a) you closed a DRV discussion contrary to policy by imposing your own preference and ignoring the discussion's consensus, and (b) misused your administrator privileges to undelete a page's history that according to policy and the outcome of both the AfD and DRV ought to have remained deleted. This is a matter of administrator misconduct if we get down to it, and you should take it much more seriously. Sandstein 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Sandstein. I feel like the entire point of the discussion was missed. That DRV asked a very specific question which had everything to do with history and attribution. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with going in and creating a fresh redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Creating a new redirect (with no history) would be plausibly allowed even with an AFD, as the prior AFD did not delete a redirect, and policy only says that creating a new article with substantially the same content; a redirect is a different thing entirely. Arguably, deletion is primarily about removing an article history from public view, so recreating a history to turn it into a redirect is clearly against policy. But creating a redirect without undeleting is not overturning the AFD in this instance. --Jayron32 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, a closer can always consider a compromise close , even if one had not been previously suggested. I If I thought an article ought to be deled and it were kept as a redirect or a merge, I would normally see no reaaon to challenge it. If I wanted it as a full article, I probably would accept it also, and try to build up the article again if possible. In nominating, if I think somethin isn't even worth a redirect or a merge, I say so. If someone comes up wirth a better idea than mine, I dont; call it a supervote. There sems to be a great deal of concern about the details of copyright. There are oither ways of indicating attribution than retainingthe edits----such as apending a list of the other editors in a note. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of King of Hearts' closes correctly assessed the strengths of the DRV participants' arguments.

  King of Hearts correctly assessed the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app). King of Hearts followed the global consensus on the matter. Both the policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and the 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect support King of Hearts' close. The 2015 RfC was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. From Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

  Before creating the AfD, AfD nominator MER-C (talk · contribs) redirected Squad (app) to Twitter with the history preserved under the redirect. The redirect was undone, after which MER-C took the article to AfD. Had the redirect not been reverted, Squad (app) would currently exist as a redirect with the history preserved. No editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) explained why the page's history should have been deleted. Since the article's history did not contain BLP or copyright violations, the policy and the global consensus support its restoration.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: After Sandstein closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) as "delete", I could have requested at WP:REFUND that Squad (app) be moved to my userspace or Draft:Squad (app). Would that request have been denied? On what basis would the request have been denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at WP:REFUND for improvements or for use in other articles. From WP:REFUND (my bolding):

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

  Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". After completing a merge of the article's content to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, I would have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• King of Hearts' close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 accurately assessed the consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator and DRV participants presented "significant new information". Five DRV participants (Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG) supported restoring the article or allowing recreation. Two DRV participants (SportingFlyer and Hut 8.5) did not support restoring the article or allowing recreation. Closing as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cunard The consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_46#RFC:_delete_and_redirect was in answer to the question "Should our standard practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?". The Squad AfD was not closed as redirect - it was closed as Delete, so that RfC is irrelevant. The purpose of DRV is not to re-litigate an AfD, it is to determine whether it was closed properly in the first place, which that one was. Yes, of course you could have asked for the article to be WP:REFUNDed to you at that point, but that's not relevant either to a discussion about KoH's DRV close, which is something we appear to be getting off the point of. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The RfC is relevant in explaining why the AfD was incorrectly closed. Squad (app) was proposed to be converted into a redirect, and the RfC consensus was that the standard practice should not be to delete article histories when a conversion happens (or is proposed with no one explaining why a redirect should not be made). The article history should be deleted only when there is a BLP violation, copyright violation, or other reason that makes retaining the history undesirable. No such reason was presented at the AfD, so the history should have been retained.

  Since you note that a WP:REFUND would have been fine, to avoid these contentious discussions, I wish I did this instead of opening the DRV:

  1. After Squad (app) was deleted by the AfD, I should have requested that Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. After draftication, I would have completed the merge and redirected Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.
  Would this violate any policies? Additionally, if this ANI discussion results in the history of Squad (app) being deleted, would I be violating any policies if I did this:
  1. I ask at WP:REFUND for Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. I redirect Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. (I would not do a merge since the merge is already completed.)
  3. I redirect Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with an edit summary noting that the history is now at Draft:Squad (app) and that a merge has been completed.
  I think my proposed draftication approach would be compliant with WP:REFUND practices. Even though it is not the main point of the discussion, it is important for me to ask this here to ensure I am not violating any policies if I take this approach now or in the future.

  Cunard (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• You would have needed to properly attribute the merge, and it may be controversial because you're attempting an end-around of a contentious deletion discussion and DRV. The least controversial thing to do IMO would probably to "merge" the information by rewriting the blurb in the list completely from scratch yourself to avoid any attribution issues. As noted above, that RfC isn't on point here, since that didn't deal with content deleted at AfD. Also, we are getting away from the point here, which is why the DRV consensus was ignored without explanation, so a sub-heading may be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The merged material is properly attributed: "merged content from Squad (app). From this comment, 'the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22.'" I will not rewrite the merged content since it is properly attributed and meets the content policies. My comment was to ask whether a WP:REFUND is fine after an AfD is closed as "delete" so that I can do a merge. As long as I'm not violating any policies, for future AfDs, I plan to ask for WP:REFUNDs to avoid contentious DRVs like this one. When I supported and completed a merge at the AfD, I only wanted to improve Wikipedia. Merging material about a non-notable acquired company to a company's list of acquisitions should be uncontroversial. I never expected it to become this controversial. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• 1) I have asked the closing admin's permission before refunding something which was just closed as delete before, especially where I've brought sources to an AfD, then I bring that to WP:REFUND. If it's just a simple GNG not being met, it should work. I assume DRV would be the case to go otherwise, but it's not in its purview - possibly a Village Pump question? 2) Whether the content could be merged was never the controversy, it was how it should be done, especially considered there have been sanctions applied in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE: Squad (app). I find this a little frustrating, there being a trivial root cause from which a number of non-ideal actions have resulted trying to fix the problem without addressing the root cause.

The root cause is the AfD nominator:

Non-notable startup, future coverage unlikely because it was acquired by Twitter. User:MER-C 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

failing WP:BEFORE, and WP:ATD-M, seriously written policy matters. Everyone has ignored that policy. User:Cunard boldly tried to fix in a non-ideal way. User:Sandstein, I observed long term, holds little respect for Cunard's style of doing things like this. User:King of Hearts I know as someone who tries to implement the right outcome, even if it is not what everyone is saying, and this is somewhere near the boundary of Supervote versus "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE United Airlines Flight 1175. I Endorse the DRV close. Has the close been altered since the start of this thread. "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a perfect reading of the discussion. There are new sources, someone thinks the old AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, this is a trivial decision that should not have come to DRV but was actionable at REFUND. This should NOT be read as an "Overturn" of the old AfD. Perhaps,re-word to "Endorse, but restore without prejudice against a new AfD". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• My attention was directed to this discussion because I apparently have disagreed with a King of Hearts decision in the past. I do not remember the incident and the list of diffs included is long. Discussion closing is one of the more thankless tasks on Wikipedia, and those brave enough to attempt it deserve the benefit of the doubt. I looked at the outcomes in the two articles mentioned here. One retains an aviation incident that recently got heavy press coverage, the other has been changed to a redirect that everyone seems to agree is appropriate. The first is being reviewed again. The issue with the second, if I understand things correctly, is whether the the history, pretty trivial in this case, should have been retained. I fail to see any way in which our readers are remotely damaged by either of these decisions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Perhaps both sides could reflect on how things could be handled with less drama in the future, but it seems to me that the amount of energy being put in to this discussion is excessive, given the minuscule impact of the incidents in question on the project. --agr (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I requested the second DRV, but I neglected to specifically state up front that I was seeking a restoration with history, so that may have caused some initial confusion that I only clarified later. My take is: SportingFlyer was clearly defending the prior AfD; Hut 8.5 was skeptical and suggested a draft; Cunard and DCG specifically voted "Restore" (along with myself); Jclemens and SmokeyJoe had "Endorse" votes that are not clear because I was not clear up front, but they did not oppose getting a refund and recreating. So I don't think the close with restore was inconsistent with the discussion, much less against consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think that what's happening here is that KoH is giving WP:ATD a bit too much weight in his closes. It's leading to cases where KoH sees a consensus to delete but finds that ATD undermines it. KoH -- the community is aware of ATD, and is able to apply it appropriately. Where the community decides to delete content, it's right for sysops to implement that decision.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I recognize S Marshall's view as valid, but I argue the other side. KoH is one of few admins who respect WP:ATD for its standing. It is clearly and strongly written into WP:Deletion policy, which is one of the most black letter policies, and especially so from the standing of WP:DRV. ATD definitely undermines an apparent consensus at AfD where the nominator and participants are in apparent blindness to an obvious ATD-M option. The AfD community seems insufficiently aware of ATD. There are insufficient speedy closes due to nominators failing to follow the AfD WP:BEFORE instructions. When Cunard raised a policy basis undermining the AfD from its beginning, others, especially the closer, were wrong to ignore him. I agree with agr that people should reflect on how things could be handled with less drama. My suggestion is that a merge proposal mid-AfD should necessitate a relist for a minimum seven days, pinging all prior participants, and asking the nominator why they didn't consider that merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:ATD is subject to interpretation and application by the community in deletion and deletion-adjacent discussion, and we interpret and apply policies by consensus. As S Marshall correctly says, the community is aware of ATD and is able to apply it. Closers should not substitute their own views.
      In any event, policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. If policy is at odds with how a matter is ordinarily treated by consensus, that means that the policy should be changed to reflect this. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Disagree with User:Stifle that Policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. Instead: Policy is merely a codification documentation of the community's ordinary preferred way to treat particular matters. And on Squad (app), there are multiple facets of non-preferred actions in this story, and falling back to policy as worded should be strongly recommended. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe, I agree with a relist when there is a merge proposal mid-AfD. I suggested a merge as an alternative to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Review and pinged the AfD participants who had already commented. Two of the AfD participants switched from "delete" to "merge". None of the participants have opposed a merge or said the article history should be deleted.

      I am hopeful that participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) would have been supportive of a merge/redirect had they been pinged and had the AfD been relisted. I am particularly hopeful because the AfD nominator had previously considered an WP:ATD-R approach by redirecting Squad (app) to Twitter. The redirect was undone because Squad was not mentioned at Twitter. If the AfD nominator had known about List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, the AfD nominator likely would have redirected Squad to there. No arguments at the AfD were made against an WP:ATD-M so it is incorrect to say that the community had applied and rejected it for this AfD.

      I agree with you and agr that this is too much drama for a very trivial issue. In the future, instead of starting a DRV, I will request a WP:REFUND of the article history to draftspace to complete a merge (my full plan here). The article's history will exist in draftspace instead of mainspace which is not ideal but it accomplishes the same goal of having access to the material in order to complete a merge, without this drama.

      Cunard (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Cunard I think that is a reasonable idea (as long as there are no problems with the hstory, of course). SmokeyJoe There are already enough people whose main occupation at Wikipedia is gaming our deletion processes (not people in this dicussion, I hasten to add), the last thing we want is to give them another weapon to do that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I don’t think that relisting due to the raising of an obvious merge targets not yet mentioned is a weakness to gaming, it would be a positive feature. Is ATD-M policy or not? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Obvious and useful merge targets, yes, absolutely. Any merge target? Not a good idea - we know how that will go. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I would leave that to a competent relister (and relister s must be qualified to close, including UNINVOLVED) to decide. In this case, the target was obscure, not easy to find by a content search for the title (squad), but obvious when discovered. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
            • So what are our expectations for delete !voters at AfD, then? Imagine that I'm reading an AfD and I agree that the article should be deleted. Should I type out: "Delete. I have been unable to identify a suitable merge target. I have considered the merge target proposed by editor A, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate. I have also been unable to identify a suitable redirect target. I have considered the redirect target proposed by editor B, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate." Or can I just type: "Delete" in the happy expectation that the closer will assume that I've read the preceding discussion with the right amount of care and attention and that I'm not a drooling idiot? Because if it's the former, then I think we have a problem with our processes.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
              • The answer is at WP:BEFORE, and in particular #C.4. The expectation is that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. Subsequent participants assume the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. When they say “delete” it is based on the assumption that there is no suitable merge target. When later someone brings up a suitable merge target, it reveals that the nominator did not do their duty, and that the other participants were working under a false assumption. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
                • I don't see it that way because, although ATD has the force of policy, BEFORE doesn't. It's not even a guideline. It's an information page, which editors are free to disregard, so when !voting we can't assume that BEFORE has been complied with. (And some editors are new. It's always good practice to check.)—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • We can’t assume the nominator has followed BEFORE, WP:Okay, and indeed, MER-C may have followed BEFORE point by point and just failed to find the kind of obscure merge target, and indeed, trying searching Wikipedia content for “squad” is not helpful. But, late in the AfD, once someone has raised an as yet unexpected but in-hindsight-obvious merge target, the earlier participants need that to be brought to their attention. What Cunard did was non-ideal. Closing regardless of the new information was non-ideal. Cunard and Sandstein not quickly and simply agreeing to a redirect with the history available was non-ideal. King of Hearts boldly imposing the obvious solution was non-ideal. And more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• The closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad_(app)_(closed) is patently obviously out of line with the consensus of the discussion, and King of Hearts has substituted their own opinion, which should have been cast as a !vote, for a correct neutral reading of consensus. The clear and obvious consensus of that discussion was to endorse, and the closure should be vacated and the discussion reclosed accordingly.
  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United_Airlines_Flight_1175_(closed) did not have consensus one way or another. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing_reviews states that a no-consensus result at a DRV of a deletion discussion may be closed as endorse or as relist, at the closer's discretion. However, King of Hearts chose not to follow this process and instead restored the article without prejudice to an RFD. This was not an option open to them, and accordingly this closure should also be vacated and the discussion reclosed with one of the permitted two possible outcomes. I do not especially care which. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I consider that last point a little unfair on them. That DRV wasn't the "AfD close review" type, it was the "new information type". A relist would therefore have been inappropriate and, frankly, bizarre. An endorse of the original AfD close can occur in this category whether or not the article is recreated. I think a reasonable equivalent interpretation would be "not restore or restore" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nosebagbear: I am sorry, I've possibly been unclear. The closure instructions say that a no consensus DRV must be closed as an overturn if the deletion was a speedy, and goes to closer discretion if it was an XFD. That was the distinction I was looking to make, not a question of new information or not. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sandstein on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed): They sought to prevent that foreseeable consensus outcome, which they do not contest, by merging part of the article elsewhere and now invoking attribution policy. But that policy was not intended to allow individual editors to prevent the community from deleting content by consensus. Consensus does not trump the attribution requirement of the Creative Commons license. King of Hearts was right in restoring it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• That's not correct, there is no need for the edit history to satisfy the Creative Commons licence. This edit does that. Hut 8.5 12:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Better to keep the history (even if the content of the revisions has to be deleted) as it keeps updated if usernames change and ensures any attributions using the "permanent link" still function. That could even be extended to other deleted pages where the reason for deletion is notability and content has been copied (or could be) to another site, not necessarily within Wikipedia. Pages without a potential redirect target would have to be moved somewhere and blanked. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia still recommends just using the page name, but when that is done the link is broken when disambiguation is necessary or there is a new primary topic for the title, or when the source page is deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure about the 2nd example, but the first is pretty clearly a supervote. I'm not going to second guess his motivation, but the close doesn't represent the consensus as given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was pinged to this discussion by Joe Roe as someone who has raised a similar concern before. The discussion Joe Roe mentions that I was involved in ([23][24][25][26]) was very similar to the Squad (app) case that Sandstein raises above: the closure advanced an argument not defended in the discussion, and would have been more appropriate as a contribution to that discussion (rather than a closure). I think extracting consensus from a deletion discussion without injecting one's own views is a real skill; I think concern about KoH's mastery of this skill is legitimate. (I have on a few occasions looked through the list of overdue RfCs to try to help out, and quickly determined that I do not have this skill, FWIW.) I have not looked at the UA1175 case. --JBL (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is all this space (okay, at least half of it) *really* being wasted to discuss if a redirected article should have its history deleted or not? This is the course of action suggested by Peter James (without any bolding, but !votes and all that) in the DRV. I also suggested it as a possible (and likely best) way forward. No one in the DRV or AfD provided a policy-based reason why undeleting the history would make the encyclopedia worse. No one. And is anyone here going to really claim that deletion here is a better outcome than a redirect? Anyone? We got to the right place. I don't think there is an actual argument otherwise anyone has advanced (I'll note this hasn't gone to RfD...). The rest is process. Viva la WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. I think I worded my rationale poorly, leading people to think I was supervoting (i.e. basing my closure on the AfD rather than the DRV), but what I meant to say was: The DRV "endorse" !voters failed to explain how the "delete" !voters in the AfD articulated a policy-based reason why the history must be removed. The sole rationale given for deletion was based on notability, not content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I strenuously disagree. Restoring an article is a use of admin tools; a better justification is needed to WP:IAR for that than just "eh, what's the difference?" - especially since that works both ways; creating a new redirect would have been entirely in line with policy and would have correctly reflected both the consensus of the DRV and the consensus at the AfD. Furthermore, I absolutely think that deletion is a better outcome than a redirect; retaining history that is of no value means that any editor, at any time, could revert the redirect and restore material that was legitimately deleted via consensus on an AfD and whose deletion was unambiguously upheld in a DRV. --Aquillion (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• How can you know that it will have no value? And yeah, they could also recreate the article. The only thing that would stop that is page protection. The history being there or not doesn't change that. But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. Yes, WP:REFUND exists, but lots of folks aren't familiar with that. And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? If so, doesn't that make the AfD votes flawed? If not, I invite you to send the redirect to RfD... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• How can you know that it will have no value? ... But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. ... And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? These are all arguments that seek to re-litigate the AFD (arguing that the deleted article may have value, arguing that it may become notable in the future, arguing for a redirect instead of deletion.) By making them, you are overtly requesting a WP:SUPERVOTE to override an AFD whose unambiguous consensus you disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's try again. Do you feel having a redirect is wrong/improper to have here? If so, can you articulate a policy/guideline-based case? As far as I can tell, no one in the AfD provided even a statement that it would be bad to have a redirect, let alone a policy-based reason not to have one. AfD is not a vote. Strength of argument trumps numbers. And there are no arguments at all against the redirect. Further, the redirect is exactly the right thing to have here. There is no way it would be deleted at RfD. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree that the community understands what ATD is and how to apply it. In this case there was consensus that the article should go, that there was no objection to creating a redirect in its place, but that the page history should not be restored. All of this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for a deletion discussion to reach. I don't think overruling it was a good idea, especially since DRV is the venue to go when you feel consensus has been overruled on a whim. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  If this is about Squad, there was no consensus on whether the history should be deleted, and no reason not to restore it as a redirect. The only apparent consensus was based on discussion before an alternative was suggested (and it's also common for editors to participate in WP:AFD without having read the comments already in the discussion or the guidelines they refer to in their own comments). Is there consensus that deletion of a page can only be reviewed to reconsider whether there should be a separate article? Can this be reviewed at deletion review or is it now necessary to request a new process? Peter James (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  This is simply the process for challenging whether Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed) was closed correctly. (and also another.). BEFORE and ATD-M are important arts of the story, but the real question is whether King of Hearts closed the DRV correctly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  The reason I gave very little weight to the "endorse" !voters as far as the edit history is concerned is that they simply stated that the AfD process was correctly carried out. Sure - but where has anyone advanced an argument as to why the content is unsuitable for public view? I think it gets to the crux of the matter: To prevent a merge/redirect, are "delete" !voters at AfD required to indicate why the content of an article needs to be suppressed, in addition to establishing why the subject is not notable? For me the answer is yes, and a satisfactory argument to that end has not been presented either at AfD or DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ultimately I just don't agree that "Overturn, participants should have made other arguments" is within the scope of DRV. It wouldn't be for DRV !voters, and it certainly isn't for a DRV closing statement. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse both DRV closes. In the first case, there were compelling legal reasons to preserve the history and these constiture a strong argument which overrides a headcount. In the other case, there was a reasonable consensus to restore the content to assist review of the new evidence and the close reflected this. Both closes were pragmatic and reasonable but should perhaps have been explained better to avoid this further discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly, this looks like a disagreement over process that ignores the actual encyclopaedic outcome. I don't see a problem with King's actions. Good faith disputes over the procedural details can be resolved by one-to-one discussion. In short: guys, please discuss this over a $BEVERAGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Updated Request for Termination of IBAN

• Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Editor Interaction Analyzer from 19 August 2018 on - updated to include Wikipedia space

As listed at WP:EDRC, I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost three years ago and made permanent more than two-and-a-half years ago. A previous request to end the IBAN made a year ago was rejected (see here). I have carefully avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist equivalent, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I have no intention whatsoever of interacting with the editor in question; the purpose of this request is to eliminate the possibility that an inadvertent crossing of paths could trigger a violation of the IBAN and another block. I request community support for termination of this one-way IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The other editor involved is Rusf10. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Looking at the Editor Interaction Analyzer report, it seems as if Alansohn was the first actor in 2 of the 3 interactions that were relatively close together (5 hours, 7 days and 16 days), and the one in which he was the second actor (7 days on Philip N. Gumbs), Alansohn's edit, restoring categories to a redirect, was not materially related to Rusf10's edit, which was to nominate the article for deletion. [27], [28]. I see no instances in which Alansohn has violated his IBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Alansohn It appears to me that the link you provided in your second sentence was not to the discussion from last year about lifting the IBAN, it was to the making of the IBAN to be permanent from 2 1/2 years ago (9 August 2018). Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken is correct. The details of the request from last year are here; This link is for the permanent extension of the IBAN. The example of Philip N. Gumbs is the exact situation that I'm hoping to avoid, in which an inadvertent interaction leads to triggering the sanctions specified by the IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The other editor is still active, and there is no such thing as an "inadvertent interaction". The last time this came up, Alansohn claimed that participating in an AfD created by Rusf10 was inadvertent. That strained credulity then and does so now. It is far better for the interaction ban to stand than for these two editors to start tangling with each other again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I know that some editors disagree with me, but I firmly disagree with the "editors are still active, better to be safe than sorry, leave the IBAN in place, it does no harm" position. In effect, it's a permanent sanction that requires at least some ongoing degree of effort to avoid not just accidental breaches (which, btw, I do believe can occur) but also cases people might view as breaches. Active sanctions also affect other editors' viewpoints towards an editor, particularly in the case of a 1-way, and making it permanent without fair consideration of whether a reoccurence would be likely to reoccur is thus unfair. Obviously this is contingent on issues not being raised, but at this point, I'm inclined to accept, per BMK's review. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, and with the expectation that further unpleasantness will lead to an immediate return of the IBAN as well as likely harsher sanctions still. --Jayron32 17:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose- I said a year ago "Nothing has changed" and that is still true today. He is still misrepresenting the situation and refuses to take any responsibility for his actions. He claims I have carefully avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended, this is not true. Although, I did not bring it to anyone's attention at the time, he violated his IBAN on June 10, 2020 with this edit when he opposed deletion of Donald Cresitello, an article that I nominated for deletion. Is this an example of what he is calling an " inadvertent interaction", because I will call in what it actually is, a blatant violation of his IBAN. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear and Jayron32:Does that change you mind?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've updated the Editor Interaction Analyzer report above to include Wikipedia space, which I inadvertently left out before. This shows more interactions between Alansohn and Rusf10 on which Rusf10 was the first mover, and Alansohn followed as soon as 17 hours afterwards. These edits must be evaluated in the light of the terms of the IBAN: "Alansohn ... is, however, specifically allowed to respond to any deletion nomination by Rusf10 where he has created or significantly contributed to the nominated article. Such comments must be content-based and not directed at Rusf10 in any personal way." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• For instance, in the June 10, 2020 edit cited by Rusf10 as a violation, Alansohhn made a single comment at AfD, which was not in any way directed personally at Rusf10. Alansohn had made four edits [29] to the article in question, Donald Cresitello, in which he did some copyediting and category work. Whether that fulfills the "significantly contributed" requirement needs to be determined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for updating. In regards to Donald Cresitello, I doubt that most would disagree with me that those four minor edits do not constitute significant contribution. He added some categories and links, nothing more. Not a single sentence of that article was written by Alansohn.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm, thoughts to consider - would be interested in hearing Alansohn's response to the bits above Nosebagbear (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RfPP

Could an admin mosey over to RfPP please - 21 requests currently open, 18 not replied to; oldest req that hasn't been replied to is from yesterday. Thanks Nightfury 15:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

20ish isn't really a backlog for RfPP. That's just a normal day. El_C 15:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never really seen it this large tbh, so I really don't know what would constitute as a real backlog on RfPP. Just seen it and thought Ooh, could do with some trimming Nightfury 15:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, 30-40, maybe...? Last reported RfPP backlog of note I think was at, like, 80, but that's pretty extreme. El_C 15:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll have a go at it. El_C 15:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, El_C. I'll make a note re backlogs in future. Nightfury 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done — RfPP backlog cleared. //Wipes brow. El_C 16:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't suppose somebody could create a bot task that every three days, posts on here saying "There's a backlog at RFPP"? It would probably be correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Like. El_C 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Only so long as the bot listed the notice for 72 hours Nosebagbear (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A new account with company's name, "we are"...

Resolved

I think we have some policies on what to do in such a case. User:Aquilapolonica1 claims to represent the small publisher Aquila Polonica and uses the plural "we" in an edit summary: We are the publisher of this book. We've corrected the description. They probably need some COI template on their talk about best practices, but I also vaguely recall that 'we-are-business' accounts with company's name as their username are not allowed? Or do they need to go through OTRS to prove their claim? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty clearly a role account. I blocked them per WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, the best place for a report like this is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and the shortcut is WP:UAA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thanks, I'll try to remember, but so many policies/specialized pages, sometimes one slips one mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, understood. Just a friendly tip. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Appeal request

• List of restrictions

This is an appeal for my current DYK restrictions to be removed under WP:SO. I have waited the 6 months required and upon reflection, I do see how my attitude and style that led to the ban could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing. I have in that time been more involved in collaboration, the main one being for FC Santa Claus. I have also been less reckless as I have in the past by ensuring I asked @Primefac: for consent any time I was thinking of doing something that might be close to violating my restrictions. I have tried everything in my power to do everything right by the restrictions. I do regret the situation on Irish politics that caused me to be put under a ban and I feel that with the restrictions lifted, I would be able to be a more productive community member.

I am aware that people may be upset with me for the past actions, but I would like a chance to put it right and show I can make DYKs in the affected areas without causing disruption. If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed. If this needs to be put in a specific template, could someone help me with that please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", "do everything right by the restrictions", "regret the situation". Why not "were combative", "was POV pushing", "do everything right" and "regret my actions"? I'm trying to get an overview, but is this even an admission of fault at all? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am apologising for what happened @ToBeFree: and I am saying I abided by the restrictions that were placed upon me and I am requesting a chance under SO to put things right. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

When I make a mistake, I usually apologize for what I did, not for what "has happened". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(and thank you for not evading the ban, but that's meeting the minimal expectation, not an achievement) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is what I am doing. I am apologising for it, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your "attitude and style" weren't what led to these sanctions. You were topic banned because your DYK hooks were objectively, deliberately inflammatory and POV-pushing. You did this for years, so why should we trust that after just six months it will be different? There's no shortage of other editors working on DYKs and no shortage of other topics for you to write about, so what benefit to the project is there in allowing you to return to the problem areas? – Joe (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't want to bring up the stats but the original discussion highlighted only 14 cherry picked examples out of 518 that were considered to be under that description. I do understand now how that can be viewed but I do think there has to be consistency given 1831 Londonderry City by-election ran on Ulster Day and there was no comment. The benefit for allowing me to return is that much of my Christian DYK work is on hymns and churches and as for British politics, mostly tend to be on legislation passed. It's why I have volunteered to retain the restrictions on island of Ireland, Islam and LGBT topics to avoid those risks that could be seen as inflammatory. What can I do to convince you @Joe Roe:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • only 14 – how many times do you think the average editor has smuggled racist and homophobic slurs onto the main page? You've previously used DYKs on hymns to proselytise and insult the Prophet Muhammad, and obscure political articles for carefully-timed sectarian baiting.[30][31][32][33] If your record shows anything, it's that you're extraordinarily creative in finding a way to make even the most banal subjects as offensive as possible, so in your case absolutely anything "could be seen as inflammatory". – Joe (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per original problems and terrible attempts at downplaying them and making the C of E the victim here. The "14 out of 518" examples were only cherry-picked in the sense that they were just some cherries on top of a large cake of similar problems. For example, the discussion that lead to the ban had two examples of "Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice", Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today from 2018 and Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen! from 2019. But in the list of 518, we can e.g. also find the exact same problem with Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christ is Risen Today, which was extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 103#DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact: and again in 2015, when CofE presented yet again such a non-hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Again! (this time not accepted), and in 2016 Template:Did you know nominations/God Is Working His Purpose Out (hook not accepted). Oh, and in 2017, as Alt1, Template:Did you know nominations/Long Ago, Prophets Knew (hook not used). Perhaps the restrictions should be expanded to cover religion as well instead, considering that you have tried the same thing so many times over so long a period. Fram (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Religion is already covered - the first restriction is A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. It appears C of E is proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow him to propose DYKs relating to Christianity.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Right, thanks. Struck that part, just a regular oppose then. Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • When looking at DYKs done since the restrictions were put into place, I cam across Template:Did you know nominations/The Twelve Days of Christmas (Correspondence). Perhaps it is unfair to blame the problems solely on the CofE, the reviewers and so on should have spotted the issues, but still: this hook is presenting a work of fiction as factual, which goes against the DYK rules ("If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way."): and that hook is sourced (in the nomination and in the article) to [34], which seems awfully like a pure copyright violating site ([35]). For someone who has been here so long and created that many DYKs, that's quite worrying. Fram (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse modification to the first line of restrictions as proposed, per WP:ROPE. This will allow him to write about British politics, but still be restricted from the other topics. I find the above discussion distasteful. We told him to come back in six months. He does so, says he understands what the problem was and regrets his previous behavior. In return, people are beating him up because his grovel isn't sufficiently self-deprecating. One of two things will happen if we accept the proposed modification. He might go on to be a productive DYK contributor. Or he might mess up again. If the later, we'll know soon enough and deal with it, probably with an extension of the ban which excludes WP:SO. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • He doesn't really seem to understand the problem though, claiming that the DYKs were cherry-picked and "could be perceived" as all kinds of problems, as if they weren't intended as such all along. This wasn't some occasional lapse, but a years-long campaign to attack certain groups, to shock, and to proselytize, all on the main page. He doesn't understand what the problem was (well, he probably does, but it doesn't show in this discussion), the appeal makes it look as if the problem was what other editors incorrectly saw in his DYKs (no, in very few, cherry-picked, DYKs from an otherwise flawless record). Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • But I do understand, I honestly don't know how I can say that I get what it was and I am willing to change and that I have changed by being more collaborative. I'm willing to do less "shocking" hooks. I'm honestly asking what can I do to prove I have changed but I feel like I am just getting kicked when I am down when I have done what I have been asked to. @Fram:, please tell me what I can do? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Primefac's close said the sanctions can be appealed after six months, that's not the same thing as "come back in six months", as WP:SO makes clear. And note that CofE waited barely four months to (unsuccessfully) try to get his related AE topic ban lifted. There and here, he has not shown that he understands what the problem was at all. He describes his appalling record at DYK as a situation, as allegedly trying [to schedule a DYK] which was not desirable to consensus, an attitude and style that [...] could be seen to be combative, an unfortunate coincidence, and now cherry picked examples. He has self-declared extreme views on British politics and this was a central issue in his abuse of the main page. Why on earth would we open the door for him to do it again? Monitoring his nominations and potentially having to drag him back here will be yet another time-sink on top of the colossal amount of volunteer time already wasted on this, and for what... so we can have a few more hooks in the DYK queue? – Joe (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Joe Roe: You are making it sound like no matter what I say or do, I'll never get a chance to prove myself that I have changed. It may just be me, but that seems fundamentally unfair. I only did the arbcom one because I was told there was no limit to wait, opposed to this which I fully respected. I have already explained I am not good at wording things, which is partially due to a disability on my part. I didn't want to have to reveal that but no one seems to be willing to understand that I have taken that time to reflect and promised to change my approach to it if I am permitted to return to these areas. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page, and this is their allocution that they learned their lesson? Their apology shows no awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. It has nothing to do with groveling, as the person above notes, and everything to do with showing no awareness about the problems they caused. We don't need deference, we need awareness and assurances that they understand that what they did was wrong. I see zero evidence of that. --Jayron32 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not very good at wording these sort of things. But I am aware of what happened and how it is viewed as. I understand that what I was doing seemed as POV pushing and I have apologised for it and am willing to prove I have changed. @Jayron32: Please give me the opportunity because I honestly do not get what I can do prove that I have understood and willing to say I will refrain from it. I even made the proposed alteration so admins can still keep the leash on controversial issues that caused the problem. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @The C of E: Did it seem to be POV pushing, or was it POV pushing? If it's not clear, that's the distinction that makes your appeals unconvincing to many. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. The appeal request is tone-deaf and not at all contrite in relation to the behaviors that got them topic-banned in the first place.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How many times can I say I recognise what I did was wrong and apologise for it? I've done everything asked of me and had it all thrown back in my face here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that this a very unhelpful addition. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. C of E it may help those such as myself who are still making up our minds if you answered Joe's question above as to whether you think what you did was POV pushing or just seemed like it. P-K3 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: The only reason I haven't out and out said that was because I was afraid of it being an entrapment. I was afraid that if I said it directly, people would just say "he admits it, so we will keep this on permanently". If I do say it, will that help and not be seen as I feared it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support modification per Roy and WP:ROPE. They have done what we have asked, that's a good sign. Like the opposition, I'm not convinced a full removal is a good idea, but how else are we supposed to gauge that if we don't give them a chance to show us? If we deny this request and it's appealed in another 6 months, how will we know if the removal is or is not justified? I think narrowing the scope of the TBAN as proposed will put us in a better place to evaluate the whole thing in the future. If they've learned, we'll have evidence that they can contribute in a related area without disruption. If they haven't, the disruption will still be limited, but we'll have direct evidence to justify a longer ban. At the very least, I hope we can give a bit more consideration than picking on a couple words in the first sentence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think it makes much sense to reduce the scope from "religion" to "Islam", considering that only one of their many offending religion-related DYKs had to do with that faith in particular (one which I felt was blown out of proportion anyway). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal and oppose modifications, per Joe and Jayron. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32 who nails it above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. Edit summaries like "I'm handcuffed" and "my hands are tied" show that the C of E thinks of himself as a victim and a glaring lack of awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. The comments above are simply a continuation of this litany of self-pity. Nothing has changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think you are misreading the intent with that message. That message was saying "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", not me just moaning and grumbling. I am aware of what happened and again, I have apologised and will change my ways @Bloom6132:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not at all. If you were truly intending to say "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", why didn't you simply say it in that way? Your edit summary says a lot about your intent. Instead of saying something to the effect of "sorry would like to help but can't", you repeat your "moaning and grumbling", as if these sanctions were unjustified and unfair. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• But it was that way. I don't understand how people are misconstruing the intent. I don't know what people want me to say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• You didn't say it would "break the restrictions". Your use of the terms "handcuffed" and "hands are tied" do come across as painting yourself as a victim. The terminology you employ here is no different. The only regret I'm sensing here is regret that you're now being called out for your behaviour (after years of being given a free pass), rather than regret for the behaviour itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have an idea.Bear with me, this doesn't happen often. The CofE says "If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed." Well clearly there isn't any consensus that dropping the full restrictions is desired, but equally there isn't therefore a way of him showing that he has learned from the topic ban. So my idea is this.
  • 1. The topic ban is modified to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics". (Note that they are already fully T-banned from The Troubles and British & Irish nationalism, so that isn't an issue anyway)
  • 2. However, before the C of E works on a proposed DYK in the areas that have been loosened (i.e. non-Ireland politics and non-Islam religion) they need to gain permission for this.
  • 3. To gain permission, they need to approach one of a group of admins or other trusted editors who are familiar with the case, and say "I wish to work on Article X for DYK, and I propose This hook sentence as a hook.
  • 4. If this is declined, they cannot submit that article for DYK.
  • 5. If it is accepted, they must (a) have the article checked by a "moderator", and/or (b) inform one of the "moderators" if there is to be any change to the hook, before it is submitted for DYK, and gain permission.
  • 6. Any gaming of this relaxation of the topic ban will be sanctionable.
  • 7. I am happy to be one of the "moderators".
• Before you say "Oh, you old bleeding heart liberal snowflake BK", I was one of the most vociferous critics of The C of E over the actions that led to the topic ban, and I nearly blocked them for it at the time, let alone TBanning. [36]. But - a little WP:ROPE seems to me to be no-lose; either we get improved and/or new articles, or we end up back here. And it's purely up to The C of E which path is taken. Black Kite (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think that if it's necessary to have a mechanism which is this complex in order to loosen their restrictions, then it's best not to loosen their restrictions at all. Who has the time and energy (and interest) to be a full-time watcher to make sure that all of these steps are properly taken each and every time CofE wants to file a DYK? It's not as if not having their DYK is going to harm the encyclopedia in some way: DYKs are, at best, ancillary to the primary purpose of the project. It could easily survive and prosper without them, and certainly without CofE's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I say, I don't mind doing it. DYK isn't the point really, though - to get that article to DYK you have to either (a) create it, (b) expand it 5x, or (c) get it to GA. These are all good things. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given Bike Kite's willingness to be involved in this process, I support their solution with an understanding that even slight problems could result in all of this coming back (or worse). This editor has done a fair bit of good stuff and I'd prefer to see them resume the good while losing the bad. I think it's less than 50/50 that's what will happen, but I think WP:ROPE is appropriate. Basically I trust Black Kite on stuff like this... Hobit (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. While Black Kite's proposal is not unreasonable, if the only option is to replace a pretty severe, nuanced restriction, with a somewhat less severe, nuanced restriction, it's more likely that the original restriction was valid to begin with, and the user needs to show that it is no longer needed, rather than that we should bend over backwards to accomodate the user's return to the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• My idea is that if they can demonstrate over a period of time that they can work within the less severe restriction, we might not need the DYK TBan at all (the main TBan will still cover the major flashpoints anyway). Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree to that proposal @Black Kite:. It's similar to what I had been doing when I asked @Primefac: for permission when I felt I might be straying too close to a topic covered by this. I hope it can prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, cautiously, Black Kite's proposal. This is actually a fairly narrow loosening of the restrictions and it should hopefully prevent any gaming. C of E is amenable to it, let's see if they can abide by it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. It wasn't just 14 cherry-picked examples out of hundreds, those were just some examples that were highlighted in the discussion that led to the topic ban. We have plenty of people working on DYK, and we simply don't need help from someone who abused it for years to push their own personal religious and sectarian bigotry. And as for accepting and addressing the problems, "could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing" doesn't come close - there's no "could be" or "appeared to be" about it, it was blatant and deliberate bigotry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to Vanamonde93 who was the originator of the tban proposal. —valereee (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the proposal reads more like PR-speak than genuine recognition of the problem. I would support BK's proposal, but only if we have a group of admins/editors explicitly willing to sign off on CofE's DYK hooks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose relaxed restrictions. A lot of the past problems involved boundary-pushing. And just today on WT:DYK, The C of E has been helpfully instructing others on how to push boundaries and get away with it. So why should we now acquiesce to pushing the demarked boundary just a little, and to allowing some of the topics that were problematic in the past to return? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I resent that accusation about yesterday, I think you misunderstood the intent behind it it. We had an editor who had a genuine question about how to nominate a DYK without naming the main contributor their request. There is nothing in the rules that says the main contributor has to be named so I gave, what I thought to be the correct answer around that. No boundry pushing here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Restriction on My Business Page LeLetoday INDIA

Dear Wikipedia i m writing this to you because i want to write about my page business if and buts and up and down like other do . and i have ecommerce business name is LeLetoday INDIA and as i m trying to edit in sandbos its not allowing me to write so kindly review my content if i posted anything or if i m not posted anything yet so kindly restore my account so i also can use my wikipedia . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 𝐋𝐞𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐈𝐍 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note this account has been indeffed for WP:NONSCRIPT. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove one way IBAN

I had an IBAN imposed in October of 2019 and I am requesting the removal of it. The details are at: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. I admit that the IBAN was imposed correctly and to avoid disruption and I was 100% at fault in that case. However, I am asking that the IBAN be removed at this time. I don't believe I had any recent interaction, even tangentially but it is hard at times to keep to the IBAN due to the nature of the details. I am not sure about notifications or comments, but I would request that any discussion I have here be sanctioned by BANEX. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The text of SJ's IBAN reads: "Sir Joseph is banned interacting with User:TonyBallioni. This is a one-way interaction ban.". It was imposed on 8 October 2019 after this ANI discussion. I'd be interested to hear what @Tony Ballioni: thinks about this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixing ping @TonyBallioni:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer report: [37]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Decline, user does not elaborate on the interaction ban or explain why it is no longer necessary. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I am inclined to keep an interaction ban that has been successful, not only in keeping Sir Joseph away from TonyBallioni but in keeping Sir Joseph on-Wiki (see the ban discussion: Sir Joseph's very survival on Wikipedia counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin). Perhaps Sir Joseph could enlarge on how the ban is preventing him from editing Wikipedia and how he would interact with TonyBallioni if it were lifted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, as you see in the interaction analyzer, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't. I also feel that there is no more need of an IBAN and we shouldn't keep it just to keep it. It's been well over a year and we shouldn't be punitive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  OK, you want to be able to comment in discussions where TonyBallioni has commented. I would support lifting the IB for that with the advice that I think you would wise to continue to avoid commenting on, about or in response to TonyBallioni; just comment directly on the topic being discussed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal - SJ is aware of the issue and knows to avoid interaction with TB. He has demonstrated that it's possible for him to do so as a mature adult. It's easy enough to restore it, so what's the big deal? Realistically after 6 mos, t-bans and i-bans become punishment to those who have to carry the full responsibility of that ball and chain. They should never be forever anymore than PP should be forever on an article. Atsme 💬 📧 14:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support reduction per WP:ROPE. Would it be possible to reduce the IBAN to merely avoid direct interaction (i.e. addressing directly or responding directly to comments) rather than merely avoiding pages/sections where the other is active? If not, I would also support a full elimination of the IBAN (pending TB's comments regarding the issue) as a second best option. --Jayron32 15:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

*Support reduction I think Jayron makes a good argument and we should allow SJ a rope and if there will be a slight problem the ban could reinstated again. --Shrike (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I reread the arguments one again and I now Support removal but I urge SJ to minimize his interaction to TB to absolute minimum --Shrike (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal. Both his admission and the time that has passed with no further events suggest that SJ has learned from the experience, and could interact productively with TB. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal per above. 17 months is long enough, really for just about any sanction of any editor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal per WP:ROPE. starship.paint (exalt) 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Should User:Jimbo Wales be unprotected?

I made a request on User:Ritchie333's talk page to reduce the protection level for User:Jimbo Wales, which was semi-protected indefinitely after persistent vandalism. Ritchie333 suggested that I bring it here to discuss. I don't think User:Jimbo Wales was meant to be semi-protected indefinitely, especially in light of the "You can edit this page!" section of Jimbo's user page. But I welcome others' thoughts on this noticeboard as to whether User:Jimbo Wales should be unprotected or left indefinitely semi-protected. 184.147.106.95 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected - Unprotecting Jimbo's page is just inviting vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Clearly Jimbo's userpage should not be left unprotected from general vandalism, just because "you can edit this page". It would be a waste of admin time and resources to police his page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• If Jimbo wants it unprotected, it should be unprotected. Otherwise semi is perfectly reasonable. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hobit. If Jimbo want the semiprotection lifted, so be it. Otherwise, I consider the odds that a good faith editor will modify Jimbo's user page in either their first ten edits or during a tenure of less than four days to be vanishingly small. Troll odds hover very close to 100%. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My main question to 184.147 is "What do you want to correct on Jimbo's user page?", which went unanswered. Until I get a convincing reason why unconfirmed editors need to modify it, I'm not inclined to unprotect after years of relentless vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I never see many "‎Semi-protected edit request"s at that Talk page. Do readers realise that's an option? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

New users don't know that. --Heymid (contribs) 10:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected Unprotection = net negative. Per above --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect and let good ol' Jimbo take care of his own userpage - After all Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. –Davey2010^Talk 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Defer to Jimbo on how he wants to manage his own user page, and in absence of guidance from him directly, keep semi-protected as the status quo doesn't need to be disturbed. --Jayron32 13:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi-pp - anyone who wants to change Jimmy's user page can post on the TP and explain why. Jimmy's UP is high profile and a troll magnet, and will remain that way as long as WP is around. Why is this even an issue? Atsme 💬 📧 13:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Refrigerator fun for all the family! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected and maybe we need to think about removing that "You can edit this page!" clause. It seems superannuated and arrested to a halcyon era when Wikipedia was less visible and frankly less vandalized.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  At least it ought be edited to indicate why maybe you can't edit this page (linking to WP:CREATEACCOUNT). –xeno^talk 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected. In general there is almost never any good reason for anyone else to edit somebody's user page other than that user themselves. In this case in particular we would almost certainly just be inviting vandalism. If somebody who is not autoconfirmed really has a burning desire to make an edit to Jimbo's user page, they can always make a talk page request. And if Jimbo wants his user page unprotected, he can comment here directly or just lift the protection himself. Nsk92 (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi-protected Looking through the protection log I see Persistent vandalism: vandalism picked up the day the previous protection expired; leaving it open only creates work for others and I get the desire to keep things open, but only when it's not creating more work for good editors and this is why we can't have nice things… indefinite is the right call.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Has anyone asked Mr. Wales if he wants it unprotected? 331dot (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification sent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect, widely watched, useful honeypot. (Unless Jimbo wants it protected). In my book, anyone vandalising Jimbo's userpage (or mine) isn't vandalising an unwatched BLP. —Kusma (t·c) 15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I appreciate this logic, but Jimbo is still a member of the community. It seems unethical to knowingly subject a user to abuse just because doing so would be "useful". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Swarm, I have now unlocked my userpage using {{unlocked userpage}}. I hope that allowing trolls to abuse me (from experience in the deleted edits to my userpage, they are quickly reverted and blocked) can help prevent vandalism to pages where it matters. —Kusma (t·c) 13:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  I find this logic somewhat questionable. Jimbo Wales's user page is still relatively highly visible as far as user pages go. Having BLP violations show up on his page from IP trolls, even for a few minutes, could bring about unforeseen consequences for Wikipedia or its reputation.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  WaltCip, from experience, that doesn't happen from short term trolling (we regularly had issue with Google or some other company caching a vandalised form of an article and presenting it to the public). Most vandalism is bot-reverted immediately these days. The Seigenthaler controversy, our largest ever BLP and public relations disaster, happened when a lie about a BLP was visible for months. In any case, I am actually not in favour of preventing all vandalism, as it serves to remind people not to trust everything they read on Wikipedia. I'd rather see some more juvenile graffiti than someone falsifying data, but we are much better at preventing (school blocks) / bot-reverting people writing PENIS on my userpage than people doing actual harm in article space. —Kusma (t·c) 11:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Aren’t user pages protected from edits by IPs and not autoconfirmed editors by an edit filter? Is Jimbo’s user page exempt from that in some way? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not as far as I know; there's an edit filter to stop IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from blanking of other people's user pages, and another that stops non-autoconfirmed users from moving other's userpages, but not for merely editing. --Jayron32 17:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, there is an EF that prevents them from editing other people base user pages, HOWEVER - as JW's page specifically invited this it is exempted. It can be restored to normal by removing the line on the page that opts it out of that protection. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  There is also an edit filter in regards to certain words on user talk pages. Amicably corresponded with someone not that long ago, tried to use the f-word (cannot even write it out here due to the filter) or something along those lines on their talk and it told me an edit filter prevented me from saving the edit due to the high risk of it being disruptive. Which i can definitely see being useful overall, if a bit over the top. So, first hand experience would suggest the edit filter goes further than just blanking and prohibits a list of 'bad langauge', seemingly on all pages, perhaps additional things as well. But cannot speak to that, just know it also blocks certain words. Anyway, have a good one. 91.96.136.141 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  On review, it looks like a admin removed that opt-in to edit (but the page is still protected). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly does it need to be unprotected, when doing so, will lead to its protection 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect, and welcome every IP that accepts his invitation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi-protected: Unfortunately it is a regular troll magnet when it is unprotected, although the indef protection could be reviewed after a while.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect - useful honeypot and a fountain of lulz. If the user wants it protected, they can ask. In that case, defer to user's preference. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect - Policy is pretty clear that we should protect pages only if they need to be, and enough time has passed. The man who founded the idea of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (along with Larry Sanger) probably shouldn't have his talk page protected unless there is a valid, ongoing reason to have it so. Otherwise, it seems rather hypocritical. I would also note that Jimbo has the tools to protect his own page if needed for a new threat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, this is regarding Jimbo's user page, not his talk page which is currently unprotected.P-K3 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't looked at either in ages, but Jimbo used to INVITE others to edit his user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah that's still there. Nice idea in theory, I suppose. P-K3 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can still edit Jimbo's userpage. All they need to do is to register an account and become autoconfirmed. It is an extremely low bar. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, by that logic you can gold lock any page and just ask people to pass a RFA to edit. It's either anyone can edit or it's not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep semi-protected: As an obvious magnet for vandalism. Not buying Dennis Brown's argument that ideology trumps common sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• There's a long-standing consensus that the default for Jimmy's user page is that it be editable, but that uninvolved admins may protect it for as long or as short a time as may be deemed appropriate to manage vandalism. It's a proxy for making the main page or TFA editable - no way will we do that but we let the idiots edit Jimmy's page unless it gets silly. Without doubting the good faith of Ritchie333, we should defer to Jimmy's long-held view that his user page should generally be editable, unless he's expressed a preference otherwise lately. So: endorse obvious good-faith semi-protection but encourage early lifting of the protection, or at least contacting Jimmy and asking him. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  JzG, Just to clarify, if by "AGF" you meant I thought it was worth doing and just did it, I was actually responding to a request at WP:RFPP by Interstellarity. I spelled out my clarifications on Jimbo's talk page at the time here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect – Jimbo encourages people to make edits to his user page. Let him decide when it's time to protect the page. --Heymid (contribs) 23:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Pending changes? On the one hand, I agree that having Jimbo's userpage un-editable is a bad look for us given the big "you can edit this page" part. But BLP violations and vandalism on what is probably the most visible userpage is also a bad look. Using indefinite PC protection seems like the ideal solution: it allows anyone to edit while preventing egregious vandalism from being visible to the general public. Enough sysops watch the page that the workload should be managable, especially since we've been managing it unprotected for large periods of time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Pending changes might be a better long term option to consider. I don't like a page to be unprotected if it means that very offensive or silly edits go live immediately, even for a short period of time. However, semi-protection does go against the "anyone can edit" text on the page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• That's indeed a good idea. Someone should just go ahead and change the protection to PC protection. It can't hurt to try. --Heymid (contribs) 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I want to say unprotect but it'd likely just result in more work for everyone involved. I'm usually against indefinitely protecting pages (or keeping indefinitely protected pages protected for >5 years) because it goes against the mantra of "anyone can edit", but I find myself neutral here. I could understand any outcome. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unprotect User pages should not be permanently protected. It also goes against the spirt of his page. Finally, he is completely capable of taking care of his own user page. PackMecEng (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep semi protected: I've used my superpowers to look into the future and have seen if it's unprotected it will be a vandal magnet and need to be protected again.  // Timothy :: talk  15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:PERM/PCR backlog nearly a month

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

---

I've just noticed Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer has outstanding requests from 18 February. I recognize backlogs are a fact of life, and I certainly don't want to pester admins needlessly, but this looked long enough that I feel leaving a note is warranted. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick discovery: WP:PERM/A has similar problems (furthest request without a MusikBot note is 4 February, furthest overall is 27 January). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

On WP:PERM/PCR, I've gone through and reviewed a bunch of the requests from older than a few days ago. Mz7 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cleared rollback and knocked out about half of the auto-patrolled backlog ... and then realized that by working from the bottom to the top, I reviewed the newest ones first. Sorry about that, but hopefully someone else can finish it off at some point soon (or I can in a few days, perhaps). Go Phightins! 02:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptive editing by changing IP

I opened a case here last week, now the user has a new IP, 88.230.175.158 (talk · contribs), and continues to edit war without any effort to discuss changes: [38]

@Johnuniq: Is longer term semi-protection possible for the page, similar to the PKK article? Soapwort (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please delete User:JJPMaster/common.css

As a test, I have accidentally made it entirely impossible to actually do anything with my account, including removing that line from my common.css. JJPMastest (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: Next time, simply add "safemode=1" as parameter to the URL. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ToBeFree_(mobile)/common.css&diff=1011887241&oldid=1011887215 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Help request regarding fair use templates

In cleaning up after an RM I ran across a missing fair use template at File:FredandRoseWest.jpg.

I'm not sure what to do with a picture that is fair use but with slightly different rationales on two different article pages, which seems to me to be the case here. On reflection I guess this is a rare scenario. I haven't seen it before and neither the template documentation nor other policies and guidelines seem to mention it.

Or maybe I'm missing it. I generally only get involved with images in connection to cleaning up after page moves, so it's not my strong suit. My own photos just go straight to commons of course.

So any advice here or on my user talk page or help in fixing the image description page (as is now my responsibility I admit) would be appreciated. TIA Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. Regards, FASTILY 23:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I'll know what to do next time. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Challenge to non-admin closure of RfC at BLP article Emanuel Cleaver

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

---

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Emanuel_Cleaver#RfC_about_Amen_&_Awomen. I think it's been many years since I made one of these, but I felt that the facts here were really egregious. The disputed content related to a brief "mini-controversy" relating to a living person, so WP:BLP applies. The closing editor, who is not an administrator, concluded that there was "a weak but present consensus" for inclusion and that the material was "notable" and "relevant for inclusion." This is an inappropriate outcome (WP:BADNAC) that went against the consensus in the discussion (WP:SUPERVOTE) for several reasons:

• Numerically, 7 users opposed inclusion, and 7 users supported inclusion.

• Substantively, the users opposing inclusion clearly offered up specific, Wikipedia-policy reasons why inclusion would be inappropriate.
  • the coverage in reliable sources was very modest and was almost entirely limited to a week after the event.
  • the minimal coverage in RS was primarily about reactions to a random statement, fueled by a handful of pundits and Twitter.
  • there was no evidence of any lasting biographical significance.

• The arguments of users supporting inclusion, and the non-admin closer's argument, basically boiled down to "there is some coverage," there was a "large number of sources," and the material was "notable" and "relevant." But:
  • "notability" is not a term that applies to content within articles.
  • We don't make coverage decisions based purely on a "large number of sources" or what is "relevant," especially when (as here) the sources repeat each other or come from a quite compressed time period. We look to the quality of sources, the importance of what they say in the context of the topic, the significance of the material.
  • Not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article — and this is especially true in areas, like U.S. politics, in which nearly everything generates lots of coverage.

• The inclusion of this content left the article out of whack — for example, as a result of this NAC, the coverage in the article on this trivial statement is three times as long as the coverage of the subject's 8 years as mayor of a major U.S. city. That does a disservice to our readers.

• The non-admin closer asserted that there was a "weak but present consensus" but that is a reversal of our usual practice — a "weak" consensus should usually not sufficient for new, contentious, challenged materials relating to biographies of living persons

• Wikipedia:Non-admin closure says that "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." That's clearly the case here: a NAC is completely inappropriate on a BLP of an American politician where the issue is contentious and editors who commented were evenly split.

For these reasons, I request that the non-admin closure be overturned. Neutrality^talk 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

---

• Overturn. Per my rationale above, we should either overturn the close to "consensus to omit" or "no consensus, thus omit"), or we should vacate the non-admin closure and let an uninvolved admin close the RfC, per our policy. Neutrality^talk 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Greetings, Neutrality. Care to explain why, besides being being the nominator for overturning the closure, you are also !voting to overturn? Isn't this overburdening the overturn count? -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak endorse/potential alternate close requested - all the support participation has valid policy backing them, though a couple are "per sources" etc (when you're the sixth person, it's hard to come up with something novel). However, 2 of the oppose !votes stating purely "triviality" seem somewhat dubiously supported in policy (though some assumed premises/"what I meant was" could certainly get them in, if reading broadly). I think it's not beyond the bounds of comprehension to have this close. A no consensus could also be justified. An omit, could not. BADNAC#C2 may have some validity - while it's a relatively minor RfC compared to all in existence, it's definitely under "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial". I would be fine with saying "have an admin reclose. They may agree with the nac's position". Nosebagbear (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• The closer’s closing statement weak but present consensus that the statement is notable and relevant for inclusion in the article demonstrates that the closer does not understand the Wikipedia term-of-art “notable”. Topics are notable or not, not statements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus for inclusion, which means omit given WP:BLPUNDEL. The thrust of opposition was from the text of WP:V Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and so those seeking to include the information needed to present some more substantial argument than simply "sourcing exists". This is an editorial decision, and editors needed to decide whether the content is WP:DUE in the broader context of the subject's life. Opposition said it is not with relatively well reasoned arguments. Supporters largely pointed to the mere existence of sources, or made claims related to "notability" which was either misunderstood or misapplied. Either way supporters neither numerically nor in strength of arguments showed that the event is obviously necessary. Given the lack of consensus, the close should have resulted in exclusion of the material. Ceterem autem censeo BADNAC#2 esse delendam (c.f. Wikipedia:Non-sysop closures). — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• To briefly respond directly to the allegations that I am engaging in WP:SUPERVOTE behavior, (defined in the referenced essay as a close "that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion"). I offered my reasoning for ascertaining what the community had come to rough consensus on. I am disappointed that Neutrality, an editor for whom I have generally held a lot of respect, would impugn my motives by implicitly asserting that I am picking my preferred close rather than engaging in good-faith efforts to ascertain the consensus at the discussion in which I have had no part. I respectfully ask that the editor strike that portion of their comment.

My response to the content of the appeal is as follows:

1. WP:NAC is an essay, which as such does not necessarily reflect consensus. Neutrality asserts that it is inappropriate for an editor to engage in the closure of a close discussion and points to an essay to defend it. I respectfully disagree with Neutrality's analysis of the consensus of the discussion here and I transparently provided my rationale on my talk page. Neutrality, who was involved in the discussion and favored an outcome of non-inclusion, is certainly within their rights to appeal here, but the portion of the appeal that pertains to my status as a non-admin does not base itself firmly upon established policies and guidelines.
2. Challenged content in a BLP should article only where there is rough consensus, read in light of policy. As I noted in my response to you on my talk page, my assessment is that such a consensus was achieved in the discussion. I may have made a mistake in using the term "weak" instead of "rough", though the two convey the same meaning in plain English. The use of rough consensus is not a reversal from usual policies, though it would be the case that we ought to omit the material if there is no consensus.
3. The evidence presented by editors cast significant doubt upon the claim that there was "minimal coverage in RS" of the event. Editors party to the discussion (especially The Gnome) provided a plethora of sources discussing the utterance and the response to it, which garnered significant and substantial worldwide reactions. As the long list of sources showed, these reactions were not limited to the anglosphere (Spain's second largest newspaper published a column about it) and there was significant in-depth coverage of the utterance. Significant coverage alone does not guarantee inclusion, of course, but it's does not appear to be the case that there was only "minimal" coverage of the utterance.
4. I agree that WP:BLP applies and I noted so in my response. I also noted that there do not appear to be any apparent policy violations as it pertains to BLP if the content is to be included, provided that there exists consensus to include the content. If there is no consensus, the content should be removed until consensus is achieved.
5. If you read through my response, you will note that I did not actually link to the general notability guidelines. This was precisely for the reason that Neutrality stated, which is that those notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. My language may have been a bit imprecise (I did write that the key question was consensus on "notable enough to include", rather that the key question was whether or not there was consensus on "the significance of the content for the article"). But, if you read the analysis I provided in plain English, I believe that you would not conclude that I am unaware of the scope of WP:N.

I have tremendous respect for the work that Neutrality does and has done for Wikipedia, but I respectfully disagree with the arguments presented by Neutrality in this appeal. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• You seem very experienced for someone who has only been here for a year and a half. I hope it isn't rude to ask this, but have you had other accounts? Mo Billings (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mo Billings, yes its rude to ask unless you have some reason to suspect wrong doing.  // Timothy :: talk  04:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's a good thing, then, that he wrote You seem very experienced for someone who has only been here for a year and a half. Did you miss that? --Calton | Talk 06:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I personally haven’t had other accounts. The way I got introduced to editing was by a university professor who gave us a rundown of Wikipedia's rules and regulations before my class started editing the page that (after a few moves) became the Uyghur genocide article. I took a break for a while but I returned over the winter to continue editing and to get more involved in the project overall. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Calton, that is not a reason to suspect wrong doing.  // Timothy :: talk  08:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Absolute baloney. You would think that YEARS of allegedly-new-yet-very-knowledgeable-of-the-fine-print-wikilawyering users eventually turning out to be sockpuppets or banned users might trigger the tiniest bit of suspicion in a veteran editor instead of pointless tone policing. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn close If I had noticed it was a non-admin close, I would've beaten Neutrality to posting this. I would like to see an admin review this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn close, per Neutrality. The extended wiki-lawyering by Mikehawk10 makes his action seem even more of an attempt to force his own conclusion to the discussion. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I’ll vacate the close. I maintain my technical and substantial objections to the grounds of the appeal, but this is starting to look like a snowball-ish discussion that will end in favor of the appeal. Everyone else so far (regardless of whether they wanted to overturn to no-consensus or weakly endorse the close) seems to be endorsing the idea that an admin closure would be better. While I have stated my objections to the appeal, I don't see it appropriate to further delay the outcome and take up more admin time on this noticeboard, as there is a clearly emerging consensus on this discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You seem to have enough grasp of WP policies, etc., to dabble in admin areas, but you need a bit more experience to understand the nuances of applying said policies, etc. I think this is a positive step towards gaining more experience. A dash of humility might aid in that journey, too. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose overturn. Despite this having being a non-admin closure, it has been correct. The only legitimate excuse offered for the overturn is the numerical argument (7 versus 7) but this is surpassed by the quality of each side's arguments. Before quickly going over the proposer's arguments, let me recap the "do not include" arguments, paraphrased for the sake of space: "It's a dad joke"; "No one will remember it in a litle while"; "it was only reported for brief spell and the forgotten"; and "it was used by political & ideological opponents." None of these arguments holds water within Wikipedia rules & policies, yet we are apparently expected to take them seriously - and count them as valid suggestions.

Now as to the proposal's arguments for overturning:

•"users opposing inclusion clearly offered up specific, Wikipedia-policy reasons": No, they did not. What they did was mostly offer opinions of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety.

•"the coverage in reliable sources was very modest": This is the most extraordinary of all arguments! The coverage was as large as it can get. I offered a sample of RS's from around the globe, and one could easily offer another batch of twice as many. The coverage has actually been the opposite of "modest."

•"the coverage was almost entirely limited to a week after the event": Actually, there are sources that comment on Cleaver's action and elaborate on it more than a week after the event, but, even if the reporting lasted one week, there is nothing that prevents a person's action from being included in his BLP article if it has been reported so widely for a week. In any biography, there are perforce items supported by RS coverage that lasts for a brief period of time.

•"coverage was primarily about reactions to a random statement, fueled by a handful of pundits and Twitter": No matter how notability is created (or "fuelled"), it remains notability. As sources irrefutably prove, this was nothing like "social media-created notability" (a claim the proposer fails to support), although we of course have articles about people and other subjects whose notability rests in the field of social media. As to Cleaver's action being a random statement, this is as clear a personal opinion as it can get! We're not in Cleaver's mind, we're not here to offer essentially political viewpoints, and we do not possess crystal balls.

•"there was no evidence of any lasting biographical significance." Again, we do not possess crystal balls. So far, notability has been firmly established. Time will show the wiser.

•"'notability' is not a term that applies to content within articles": We have established that notability for the event exists. Now, we are to examine if that notability should be discounted. Well, the relevant guideline states that content coverage within a given article or list, i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list, is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. The content policies refer strictly to rather technical issues as we see in the link within the guideline, e.g. article titles; image use policy; no original research; etc. Now, abt "due weight", the main caution involves posting up the views of tiny minorities but here we have exactly the opposite of "minorities"; we have the world's media paying rapt attention.

•"sources repeat each other": The New York Times reporting event XYZ in appproximately or even in the same manner as, for example, Pravda, does not mean that one necessarily "copied" the other! It usually means that there are limited ways of reporting the event. The specific action by Cleaver cannot be improvised upon too much in reportages. Yet it still got reported as widely as possible.

•"we look to the quality of sources, the importance of what they say in the context of the topic, the significance of the material": This is dumbfounding. What is wrong quality-wise with the sources proffered for verifiability? The proposer is challenged to offer grounds for disputing the quality of the sources cited. The "importance" and the significance of their reporting is evident within their texts. Anyone can reject the world's media as being of low quality and reporting "insignificant" events but this would be wrong.

•"not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article — and this is especially true in areas, like U.S. politics, in which nearly everything generates lots of coverage": No recent event in US politics, save for the events surrounding the transition of presidential power, generated this kind of worldwide coverage, from Greece to China and from Britain to Russia, and the proposer is again challenged to demonstrate otherwise.

•"the inclusion of this content left the article out of whack — for example, as a result of this NAC, the coverage in the article on this trivial statement is three times as long as the coverage of the subject's 8 years as mayor of a major U.S. city": Well, that's not truly our or anyone's fault, is it? A person can spend a lifetime working and perhaps doing good work too, yet becoming more known (and Wikinotable) for one single thing they do. Examples abound! We are not here to enforce procrustean balance; if an article seems "out of whack" that may actually be because events shaped it so, as indeed happened in Cleaver's life and biography.

There is nothing of substance that could possibly justify an overturn. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"users opposing inclusion clearly offered up specific, Wikipedia-policy reasons": No, they did not

Other editors might want to take a look at the discussion and see how far off-base that claim is. Take note, also, of User:The Gnome bludgeoning of the discussion, with occasional pearl-clutching. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Off-base"?! Care to point out the connection between the information and the Wikipolicy reasons offered? I've seen few, if any. As to my "bludgeoning" the discussion, I will not contend that I persisted in pointing out the significant discrepancies in opposite arguments a bit much, though it is not a reason for the closure to go one way or another. In any case, it will be amusing to witness information abnout an event that was literally reported around the globe disappear from Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn close It may not a formal policy or formal guideline, but I consider the essay language recommending strongly against closes where "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator," to be eminently reasonable, logical and widely accepted among experienced editors. This type of discussion is a waste of time, and it would have been far better if an administrator had closed this discussion. As to the substance of the issue, the notion that a short lived tempest in a teapot about a mild linguistic joke should absolutely dominate the biography of a living person with a long career of public service? Shame on the editors who advance that bogus argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: In fact, that part is in a guideline. WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Correct, MarkH21. The essay text accurately explains and elaborates on the language of the guideline. Controversial NAC closes are a mistake, and a time sink for all concerned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• The user undid (or "vacated") their close [39], so why is this still open? Can an admin mosey over the to talk page at their earliest convenience and re-close the RfC? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• This should be closed: per Bison X, there is no more issue to discuss, the close has been undone and awaits uninvolved admin close.  // Timothy :: talk  06:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Need help with Israeli Wine page.

• Israeli wine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page has been used to drag the Israeli Arab conflict into the page. I have been bullied by other editors trying to stop me from fixing it.

I am unsure as to how to deal with this and fear it will go back and forth.

Someone, please give me some guidance on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medic505 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, first things, first. There are restrictions on who may edit the portion of that page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict; this clearly stated on the talk page and on the notice that you see when you open the editing page: Users who edit the identified content....must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure. You have far fewer than 500 edits and so are prohibited from editing that portion of the page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I suggest you confine yourself to putting forward your suggestions for improving the article on Talk:Israeli wine and engaging in discussion about it there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I protected for 3 months since this has been going on for a while based on the edit history. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Medic505. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a Jewish resident of California's Napa Valley wine country, and I have visited Israel twice, including visits to the West Bank and the Golan Heights, where there are many vineyards. I have a friend who has worked as a consultant to several Israeli wineries. I like and support Israeli wines and try them when I have the chance. That being said, the Israeli-Arab conflict has had a significant impact on the Israeli wine industry, and that should be reflected neutrally in this article. In my view, the article should not be stripped of discussion of this controversy. But this noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. The proper place to discuss this matter is Talk: Israeli wine where it has been nearly a year since anybody said anything. There are various forms of dispute resolution available, and you should be aware that all articles related to the Israeli-Palestian conflict are subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. So, be cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

First, your being Jewish is immaterial to the conversation. Second The Israeli Arab conflict has very little to do with Israeli wine. Do we talk about any other conflicts on wine pages in the world or does only Israel get that special treatment? Second much of what they have posted about the conflict is also wrong. As such, there is no neutrality. That is what I am challenging.--Medic505 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, despite your snark, Wikipedia editors are required to disclose their conflicts of interest and I have disclosed my mild COI here. Do you have any conflicts of interest to declare? Your claim that the I-P conflict has little to do with the topic of Israeli wine is questionable since these issues have had a negative effect on the export potential of these wines. Again, we do not resolve content disputes at this noticeboard and you should make your content related points at Talk: Israeli wine. This conversation is about behavior, including yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No snark intended. I do not do identity politics. Your religion is not a conflict. If you were an importer of wine, that might be a conflict, if you were vintor in Israel it might be a conflict, but your religion is not a conflict. I focus on debating the issue, not the person. I posted here looking for direction on how to dispute and resolve this. Posting in the talk will not accomplish anything I am looking for a neutral party to get involved who can A decide whether anything about the Israeli Arab conflict is even relevant and then if so correct what is incorrect.--Medic505 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, your failure to discuss the matter at the proper venue Talk: Israeli wine , which every experienced editor would advise you to do, is not helpful to the goal of improving the article, and a poor choice on your part. You are entitled to your opinion regarding identity politics, but you are obligated to disclose your conflicts of interest, as are all other editors. I submit that my willingness to disclose is a good thing, and I will continue doing so. Please make the same disclosure, and please do it in your next edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to disclose, thanks for insinuating that I do. I believe there is a process for when something can not be resolved in the talk that is what I came here--Medic505 (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC) looking for help with.

How the heck can you possibly claim that the matter cannot be dealt with at Talk: Israeli wine when you have not posted there and that talk page has been silent for eleven and a half months, Medic505? That makes zero sense. Take it to the talk page, or move on to something else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it is pretty clear from the response I got to my changes of just reversing them and then attempts to bully me into silence and the removal of the dispute tag. --Medic505 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, your response is not acceptable. You are verbose here but silent where it counts, namely Talk: Israeli wine. Use that talk page or drop the subject. Period. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I did I put the neutrality into question and it was immediately removed, in violation of the rules if I am not mistaken, and so I came here for help.--Medic505 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken. And you have been given help -- good advice -- which you have so far ignored. Talk: Israeli wine: use it. --Calton | Talk 12:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

How am I mistaken? Am I not allowed to challenge neutrality? My understanding is once challenged there is a process to resolving it which was not followed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medic505 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a process to challenge neutrality, Medic505, and step #1 in that process is to discuss your concerns at Talk: Israeli wine, which you have been told to do umpteen times here and elsewhere, and yet have failed to do. That is your mistake. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Medic505, your 2nd mistake was attacking Cullen328, who would have likely helped you in several ways but has no reason to now. Your first mistake was not taking it to the talk page before coming here, which is forgivable, but now that you know this, it isn't acceptable if you don't make that your next move. You might try attacking people less, particularly those that are trying to help you and simply sharing their familiarity with the subject matter in which you have an interest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No attack was intended as I stated before "no snark intended", my apologies to Cullen³²⁸ if it came across as an attack. Just trying to figure out how to navigate fixing the page which I would have thought would be simple, and getting bullied with threats of being blocked for trying to do so. I came here looking for how to navigate the process.--Medic505 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, you have now posted eleven times on this noticeboard, and ZERO times at the proper place to discuss your concerns, which is Talk: Israeli wine. Can you please explain your refusal to describe your concerns in the correct place? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mainly a lack of understanding of how this process works which I still have, and when I posted a dispute to the neutrality it was deleted. Now the page was locked with the other editor's edits, instead of locking it with mine and letting them challenge it. So basically I am looking to the admins to create fairness. The current page makes it more about the Arab Israeli dispute than about Israeli wine. It would be way more reasonable to put links to relevant pages of related issues. Wiki should be about factual information and not have it bathed in bias and opinion.--Medic505 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Five reverts by 5 different users in one day is a bit much for a page subject to WP:1RR, I find. Will try to remember to restore the ECP after the full protection expires (if not, please remind me). El_C 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Now the talk option does not even exsist so there is no way to even discuss changes?--Medic505 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not so. Access to the article talk page remains unaffected. Also, please review WP:INDENT. El_C 22:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the talk page - sorry the link moves when the page gets locked. --Medic505 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Um, why in the world is this fully protected? One user, who is violating ARBPIA in every edit to this noticeboard, has edit-warred. Another editor restored those changes then apologized for the edit. There is zero reason to fully protect this page. Extended-confirmed would be nice though. And enforcing ARBPIA4 would likewise be nice. nableezy - 01:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You know what would be "nice," Nableezy? You acknowledging that said apology (20:40, 13 March 2021‎) occurred after the full protection was imposed (17:06, 13 March 2021‎ ). Or that the edit warring continued (23:33, 12 March 2021‎) after the WP:ECP was likewise imposed (21:43, 12 March 2021‎). Oh well, one can dream. El_C 02:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What edit-warring? There is exactly one revert in the recent history of that article that isnt enforcing the 500/30 rule. How is that edit-warring? How does that justify full protection? nableezy - 03:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And zero edits this year unrelated to this edit war. But why let a good complaint go to waste, as a motivational technique or whatever? El_C 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I count two, not one, post-ECP reverts ([40][41]). This reminds me, though, how last year Nableezy came to my talk page to complain how much my ARBPIA enforcement sucked or whatever, but then immediately followed that up with an additional ARBPIA enforcement request. The strange thing is that I remember them actually being somewhat surprised I didn't feel motivated to provide additional assistance at that time. Oh well, self-reflection can be a harsh mistress... Admins: the ARBPIA fun times never end! Line up! El_C 04:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Impolite behaviors by User:The Ultimate Boss

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

---

I am not sure if this is the right place to complain about incivility on Wikipedia, but I want to address my personal experience with The Ultimate Boss. On 3 March, this user opened a GAN review for an article that I created. After 10 days of inactivity, today 13 March, I left a message at this user's talkpage to inquire whether they would proceed with the review soon, given that GAN reviews normally take 7 days maximum. Instead of giving me an appropriate answer, The Ultimate Boss removed my message, with the description "Not in the mood." I was pretty stunned, so I followed up by asking this editor to scrap the review, or ask another reviewer to step in his place. This editor continued to remove my messages multiple times ([42], [43]), without showcasing respect and responsibility for a GAN review that they opened in the first place. When they told me that they had contacted another editor to step in, but did not reveal who that editor was, I followed up by inquiring who that editor would be, to which The Ultimate Boss responded (quote-by-quote): "I do not know. You'll have to figure that out yourself. The whole conversation, which has since been removed entirely, can be viewed in this user's talk page history.

Although this encounter did not include any harsh use of profanity or malicious personal attack, I am pretty stunned that an editor could not show enough respect and responsibility for a task that, I suppose, they have done multiple times (to note, this editor has contributed to quite a few GAs, and has reviewed quite a few GANs as well). It may be noted that an administrator had noted this user about WP:CIVILITY before. I am not sure how to deal with this sort of what I find uncivil, so I want to start a discussion here for The Ultimate Boss, or any concerned editors, to weigh in on how to avoid this sort of behavior in the future. HĐ (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

HĐ I did not have time to review that article because I am planning on making Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon a Good Topic to honor Pop Smoke. I want to finish it before I head for college in the summer. Just note, I did not use any profanity at all. I have learned from my past not to be rude to other people. My loved one who passed from Covid also helped me realize that. But if you want to discuss it with other editors go right ahead. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Kyle Peake was kind enough to take over the review for me. He has more time on his hands than I do right now. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Ultimate Boss: Yes, I am aware you did not use profanity--which I noted above. What I want to emphasize here is your lack of responsibility for your tasks, and your lack of incivility when you removed my messages repeatedly. We are all busy--I am busy too, but don't let that interfere with your duties here. You should have reached out to me and said that you were not capable of reviewing the GA, instead of waiting for me to come to you, and then got this unpleasant response. HĐ (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing any need for admin action. Looks like HĐ was badgering The Ultimate Boss and The Ultimate Boss was curt with them in return because they were busy with something else. HĐ, we are all volunteers here and you might be a lot less pushy. We get to it when we get to it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I understood. I do see that there is no need for admin procedures--it's just that I was pretty stunned by uncivil behaviors. Either way, I think this has been resolved, so I'd like this to be closed (if possible). HĐ (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Problems with edit requests system

Dormskirk has raised the following concern about the edit requests backlog and general operation of the system, which I said was worth raising here: "the whole edit request system seems to be broken. There is a backlog of some 224 edit requests going back over four months which, in my recollection, is as bad as it has ever been. Meanwhile paid editors are not complying with the edit request system: you just have to look at Ferrexpo, Kingspan and Ocado to see that that conflicted editors are now inserting text directly into articles with impunity. In the real world there would be leadership from seniors to fix a broken system but because wikipedia is a community such issues never get addressed.

My own observation from someone who occasionally recommends that people make edit requests is that the backlog was pretty much eliminated for a time thanks to the efforts of one editor, Spintendo, but that since they're no longer so active, things have spiralled out of hand again. Obviously the success of a whole system such as this shouldn't rest on one editor. Do others have any thoughts on how to make progress on this issue (not just the backlog, but perhaps broader reform)? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the first step is for administrators and editors who are forcing paid editors into the COI request queue or AFC queue to acknowledge that there is no actual requirement for conflicted editors to use those queues if they are otherwise submitting edits that are defensible from an encyclopedic perspective. The over-strict interpretation and application of the COI guideline can be seen in effect at WP:COI/N with the indefinite blocking and naked reverting of disclosed paid editors. Pinging Justlettersandnumbers and Possibly for comment. –xeno^talk 12:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, as in many things, deciding and writing "encyclopedically defensible" can be easier said than done, primarily around the issues of NON-COI editor researching broad and narrow context for NPOV, eg., unmentioned spin and due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno: thanks for the ping. I don't see a connection between asking people to use talk page edit requests if they have COI and the edit request backlog. The backlog has 228 current requests. I have only interacted with one of the editors making a request, who has made edit requests for five different articles on the list. So it's 5/228, at least for my part.--- Possibly (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No concern with asking; as long as it remains an ask. Editors who acknowledge the guidance and choose to edit directly are permitted to do so and their edits should be engaged on an editorial basis, the same as any other editor submitting changes for collaborative review. All editors bring bias to editing and all edits are subject to scrutiny, yet still most editors (including paid) are permitted to submit changes directly. With disclosure, paid editors are making it easier to scrutinize their potentially compromised edits and should not be treated any more harshly than other editors with undisclosed biases (i.e. every single one of us). None of this precludes asking paid editors to comply with policy such as "not promotional" so they can adapt their editing to be within project scope. Forcing disclosed paid editors into a backlogged and currently understaffed process merely kicks that can down the road (potentially to another contributor, if the asking users don’t also respond to requests to that queue) and encourages undisclosed paid editing, further increasing administrative overhead and backlogs (is the paid-en-wp queue still hopelessly backlogged?). –xeno^talk 14:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying as a theory, but do not see it as being an actual issue in practice, at least from what I have seen at COIN.--- Possibly (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• DGG: you’ve done a lot of good work on that queue and integrating these types of edits- how can we attract editors and admins to staffing that queue? Are you able to improve WP:COIRESPONSE with additional best practices or useful approaches for editors willing to help with the backlog? –xeno^talk 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Some of our processes are broken by design. I see no reason why paid editors should expect a quick response to their edit requests from volunteers, who have better things to do. As for them making edits directly, as xeno says we can't force anyone to follow the guidelines in WP:COI, which only "strongly discourages" such edits. We could eliminate this backlog and make life much, much easier for those trying to clean up commissioned spam if we just forbade paid editing, but that seems unlikely to get broad consensus. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that much different from almost every policy or guideline: we can't force almost anyone to do anything, whether it is complying with V, NPOV, OR, or being CIVIL, following DR, etc, and to the extent any account can get blocked, it will almost never occur unless there is brightline, or extensively obvious fault (and then sotto voce, there is the next account). We are, by design ('anyone can edit'), left almost exclusively with asking, instructing, pleading, hoping, lecturing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who's been responding to enough edit requests lately that the (kind, helpful, and a net positive) paid editor on the talk page of the article I've been helping with has taken to pinging me directly when she has a new one, I'm inclined to sympathize with this but not entirely agree with it. Volunteers quite certainly have better things to do than respond to COI requests, but if we have too many better things to do, they'll just give up and black-hat it -- doesn't exactly decrease our workload or make the project look good. The best paid editors are genuinely positive contributors to the project whose dedication to their topics is unusually high (they are, after all, unusually motivated). There's good reason to wade through the trash. (Of course, even with the good ones, you need to really be sure you're not unbalancing the article in a promotional direction.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• A similar thread was recently opened at the village pump, and it resulted in the creation of a new wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Edit requests. It seems there are a few users interested in improving the edit request system and some procedural improvements are already going on. --MarioGom (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• In the particular corner of Wikipedia that I haunt - articles about U.S. colleges and universities - I have begun adding additional advice to COI editors to the effect of "if no one responds to your request in a timely manner, feel free to post a brief message at the Talk page for the higher education project." I think that works reasonably well as it provides those editors with an outlet that connects them with a (very small) group of editors who have a specific interest in those articles and thus are more likely to respond to a request for help. Perhaps other editors who respond to COI editors with advice can do something similar and try to provide those COI editors with one or two projects or other venues (e.g., some noticeboards might be appropriate for some requests such as WP:BLPN for an article about a living person) to try if they don't get a timely response to their request...? ElKevbo (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I now have chosen an edit request (one of the older ones) and spent 30 minutes researching sources to figure out whether the suggested edit conforms to our policies. If every request requires 30 minutes of an experiences editor time, the system is not viable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing this, Ymblanter. I haven't dealt with many edit requests, and whenever I did, it was a very time-consuming process. The problem, however, might be paid editing itself. People are paid to make edits that do not striclty adhere to our policies, whether intentional or unintentional doesn't affect the result. The result is a need for volunteer time spent solely on fixing their mistakes. This can happen in articles, this can happen in the request queue, this can happen at AfC. Skipping or enforcing the review process just moves the time problem between places. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  (and regarding non-financial COIs: As we all know, enthusiasm can be exactly like payment; it can even outperform payment in terms of motivation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's why I typically restrict my editing in that area to my specific area of expertise where it's usually relatively quick for me to evaluate a request and respond to it. I'm also not shy about asking follow up questions both to (a) verify the request and the underlying source(s) and (b) ensure the request is specific and straight forward to implement. That's also why I made the suggestion above to also point COI editors to relevant projects and noticeboards where editors who have already expressed a specific interest in that topic may be willing to help. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to go through some of Spintendo's history to see how they handled edit requests given they previously handled quite a bit. I looked at a couple when this issue was raised at Village Pump, and from those it appears if the request did not follow the "change x to y" type format, Spintendo pushed back. Although, this was admittedly a teeny sampling. S0091 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Many edit requests will take only a few minutes, if they're no more than updating financial figures or the name of an executive, and a good source is properly given. But these are the sort of requests that coi editors should be able to make on their own. However, anything more substantial takes much longer. When it involves a addition of substantial new material, or a change in corporate structure, or a general proposed removal of what the coi editor thinks is bias, it can take not just 15 minutes, but many hours, and require extensive back and forth and considerable checking of the actual sources. This will be true of the best of systems here, but it is particularly true of ours, where multiple individual edits are suggested, and each one is negotiated. . I have done this a few times, sometimes with good results, but I have decided that I simply will not do this any longer, nor would I ask anyone else to work this way.

What I suggest we need to do is to tell the coi user to make a proposed replacement of the necessary part or entirety of the text, and we will either accept it, modify it if its simple enough to make the modifications, or reject it, and that will be the end of it. We cannot take the time to teach each individual coi editor what proper editing is. I will gladly teach at considerable length any good faith volunteer editor who shows a willingness to learn, if they work in a field I can understand.

But when a coi editor asks the same of me, they are asking me to do my unpaid volunteer work to make improvements for which they will be paid. I have nothing against paid editing in other contexts: I've done some myself, before joining the encyclopedia. But I will not assist it here. If good coi editing happens anyway, and is properly declared, I won't try to remove it, but that coincidence is extremely rare. A very few people have been able to do good volunteer work along with some adequate paid editing on the side, but none I'm aware of has been able to do equally good paid editing as they do for their own private interests. We all know why: proper NPOV editing will generally not be accepted by their employers. No editor can make an honest living out of it; those who continue mostly do it as a supplementary service to their PR clients.

As remarked above, this can apply to unpaid coi also. Not always--someone who has learned to edit properly in volunteer work can occasionally make a brief factual article on a subject with some degree of coi, as I did for my now-deceased thesis advisor, when the relevant wikiproject asked that someone do it. But normally the most persistent arguments about content have come from those with a direct personal non financial involvement--often a relative of the individual.

The answer to requests for an article I learned here long ago remains the best "When you are notable enough for an article, someone else will write one". This can be extended to requests for substantial changes: "If you are noteworthy enough for the changes to be important, someone uninvolved will notice." That might be a little unfair--there are a great many articles and insufficient good editors. Perhaps we should suggest that the person involved call attention to the need for improvement on the relevant project talk page, with at most a bare minimum of details or a key reference, and if the subject is of interest, someone will follow up--follow up in the usual way a volunteer fixes an article. Despite what I said earlier, I will sometimes want to do that in areas of truly special interest to me, or when I wanted to learn about the subject, articles which I would have wanted to improve had I come across them by myself, or happened upon a source which I thought should be in Wikipedia , which is and will remain the usual way I notice the need for improvements. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What I suggest we need to do is to tell the coi user to make a proposed replacement of the necessary part or entirety of the text, and we will either accept it, modify it if its simple enough to make the modifications, or reject it, and that will be the end of it. We cannot take the time to teach each individual coi editor what proper editing is. I think this is beyond reasonable, and would propose that this be added to the COI and Edit Request instructions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Sandstein 10:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think DGG highlights an important issue when he says If you are noteworthy enough for the changes to be important, someone uninvolved will notice. I've responded to edit requests, but I mostly work on the black hat side of things; working on sockfarms like Yoodaba, VentureKit, Jaktheladz has led me to look at the histories of hundreds of company pages. What's striking about many of them is that they're often relatively high-traffic click-wise, but attract very few legitimate editors; in a large number of cases, the overwhelming majority of people who edit the pages are Wikipedians on AWB sprees, bots, confirmed accounts of large sockfarms, SPA throwaways that edit the company article once and then disappear and suspicious IPs that never edit anything else and often geolocate suspiciously close to company headquarters. In many cases, I'd put money on the fact that 80+% of the edits involve some sort of COI. Many of the edits are harmless in the sense that they're not overtly promotional – though many are – but in sum, this leads to many of those pages being of very little encyclopaedic value.

The reason that so many of our low-ish profile company pages read like the "milestones" bullet-points on company websites is because that's precisely what they're based on: Someone from marketing writes an article that re-hashes their "about us" PR material and over subsequent years, the interns get called in to "update" the "company's Wikipedia profile". When someone finally notices and slaps the page with an incriminating maintenance tag, the more competent marketing socks get hired to clean the articles up a little.

On the flip side, UPE on high-profile pages that attract many legitimate editors often turns out to be less problematic because the changes get reverted, toned down, or overwritten fairly quickly. I think it's an important consideration to make that the fact that a company meets NCORP doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually going to attract legitimate editors – though granted, many of the pages I'm talking about were written when AfC wasn't yet a thing and standards for inclusion were generally lower.

I believe that this ties in with the reason we have so many edit requests in the first place: Sure, part of it is that the work can be tedious, but another important aspect is that there are very few editors actually interested in writing about companies on their own (or at least doing so regularly), and hence many company pages are indeed outdated and unattended – as a result, we get people who take matters into their own hands and just edit without disclosure, and a ballooning edit request backlog that's not a very attractive thing for most editors to be working on. Blablubbs|talk 14:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled on a small (50 employee) company the other day because someone had added it as an important industry in a US county article. I cleaned it up some, but available sources, beyond the company website and press releases, are rather thin. The few other articles about corporations that are on my watch list are also poorly sourced and written, but are not high on my list of things to work on. There is one where I recently had to clean out some attacks on the company's owner. I can only guess how many such articles are not being watched by active editors. - Donald Albury 16:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect Talk:Baháʼí Faith

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

---

Can someone please semi-protect Talk:Baháʼí Faith. An IP address has been promoting their blog of conspiracy theories (complete with Freemasonry and Jewish involvement). I commented out the links and an IP reverted me. They first added this, then two more. I commented out the links while leaving the user's argument, and they reverted here. Or if I should leave it, I'd appreciate the feedback. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} also added. El_C 17:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Something broken with the page copy

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

---

Something is not working on the article for copy, a disambiguation page. The page layout gets messed up. Hope it is not just me. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks normal to me. Also, probably not an admin matter, but better queried at WP:VPT. El_C 17:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it is something happening with all disambiguation pages for me. Thanks for the response. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it just had to do with using the Vector layout and the Legacy box checked. I have switched appearances and all is fine now. Can I leave this section here for others or should I delete it? UserTwoSix (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you should pose your query at WP:VPT. No need to delete, but probably should follow up there rather than here. El_C 17:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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