:<u>'''NOTE'''</u> - it's called [[WP:AGF]], and it's a policy here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:<u>'''NOTE'''</u> - it's called [[WP:AGF]], and it's a policy here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
* Since many of you know and like me, may I propose a way to avoid further conflict? (1) Can we please agree to tag possible socks with {{tlx|spa}}, and then ''before the discussion is closed'' a checkuser can review, and/or the painstaking work of [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet investigation]] can be done, to strike the statements of improper accounts. (2) As for EC, it seems to me that the restriction applies to any edits exhibiting the problematic behavior, even on pages only tangentially related to the topic. If the scope of the EC restriction is disputed, I recommend requesting a clarification from ArbCom, rather than engaging in circular debates. Let them earn their pay. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
* Since many of you know and like me, may I propose a way to avoid further conflict? (1) Can we please agree to tag possible socks with {{tlx|spa}}, and then ''before the discussion is closed'' a checkuser can review, and/or the painstaking work of [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet investigation]] can be done, to strike the statements of improper accounts. (2) As for EC, it seems to me that the restriction applies to any edits exhibiting the problematic behavior, even on pages only tangentially related to the topic. If the scope of the EC restriction is disputed, I recommend requesting a clarification from ArbCom, rather than engaging in circular debates. Let them earn their pay. It may also be useful to let the person closing the discussion decide whether the EC restriction should apply, rather than the involved editors debating this issue endlessly. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
*:Seems fair.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
*:Seems fair.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy
The legal name of the madrasa is “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” but the name they proclaim publicly is “Darul Huda Islamic University” and its acronym, “DHIU”, which is intended to mislead people. They misuse Wikipedia editions, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata by creating and maintaining articles in various languages to protect their own interests. I don't know if the institution could be called a university or not and the articles was eligible to be kept on Wikipedia or not. I do not recommend deleting the following articles but I request a cross-wiki investigation including meatpuppetry. Admins can discuss and make the necessary decisions themselves.
Name
The name was given as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” when it was registered under the Society Act in 1989 and filed as an NGO in 2019.
Darul Huda has been promoting itself the term "university" and DHIU since 2009, which is incorrect.
Their homepage was changed from darulhuda.com to dhiu.info in 2009 and to dhiu.in in 2016. They launched a Facebook page called “Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU)” in 2011.
Four bank account details, including two branches of State Bank of India, Canara and HDFC, are listed in the footer of Darul Huda's website. There the name of the account holder is given as "Darul Huda Islamic Academy".
UGC has not yet recognised Darul Huda even as a Deemed University.
Institutions that are not accredited by UGC should not be used as a university in India. Even UGC-accredited Deemed Universities have no right to use the term University. Then how can Darul Huda, which is not even recognized as a primary school by Government of India or Kerala or any School boards like CBSE, ICSE and KHSEB, use the revered word "university"?
That's why, instead of changing the legal name, they only give the promotional name on their websites, profiles and biographies of students and alumni published in different websites, Facebook and the self-created Wikipedia articles.
Suspected accounts
Some accounts were involved in the campaign on various wiki projects. Most of these are students or alumni of the Darul Huda:
Ashrafnlkn[8] and Ashrafulkhalq[9] are two accounts of Ashraful Khalq from Nellikunnu (nlkn). He is the major contributor of the article Nellikunnu. His both names are mentioned on his Twitter account.
Students and alumni of the Darul Huda, including Suhail Hidaya has created numerous articles related to it on various Wikipedia sites, including English, Malayalam, Arabic, Français, Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, Türkçe and Urdu, and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, and modified related Wikidata items.
gulf-times.com: A Doha based daily and news portal. Shafeeq Alingal also called Shafeeq Hudawi is the Staff Reporter of Gulf Times[11] since 2019[12] and former Senior Reporter of The New Indian Express[13] and TwoCircles.net.[14]
I removed the old contents which wasn't referenced correctly. @Sabeelul hidaya is bringing his personal hate to the university over Wikipedia!!!
I am not a student, alumni or any employee of Darul Huda Islamic Academy. I have been contributing to Wikipedia articles for 5 months and you can check my contributions on my User's page (And if needed, I can give you the records of my current University).
@Sabeelul hidaya Please note that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and as a contributors, we need to make it best. Please stop bringing your personal hate to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia should not be seen as a place to tell lies alone. Is it not a lie to say that you have not studied in Darul Huda yet? Did I say anything without the necessary references?
Why are you trying to mislead Darul Huda as a university?
Isn't Darul Huda an institution operating in India?
Isn't UGC the accrediting agency for the India-based universities?
Has the UGC or any other government-recognized council even recognized Darul Huda as a primary school?
Why did you omit the word "UGC did not recognize it even as a Deemed University until 2020" added to the article to avoid misunderstandings? This idea was contributed to this article by @Gab4gab:, not me.
@Sabeelul hidaya I removed nothing from the citation as you're talking. The citations are auto-generated and it shows like this[1]. Tinkvu (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you say may sometimes be true. You answer other questions as well. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did'nt get what you're talking about! Tinkvu (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will make it clear to you.
Darul Huda Islamic University is a Private University under the managing committee, Darul Huda Islamic Academy. And it's because of the managing committee is Darul Huda Islamic Academy, all the bank accounts are under the academy.
There are a lot of institutions and other NGO's under Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Tinkvu (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinkvu: I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.
There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.
I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the signed certificate of affiliation by the Islamic Universities League.
Darul Huda Islamic University is a Private Islamic University under the managing committee Darul Huda Islamic Academy. And it has affiliations by the Islamic Universities League. Tinkvu (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinkvu: FUIW and LIU are not accreditation/affiliation agencies, even if it is true that Darul Huda was granted membership. The document only mentions as "membership" and "member" on both of the certificates you claim to be the certificates they granted to Darul Huda.
I told you earlier that, I do not intend to discuss the name or the notability of the organisation. I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists, and Wikipedians, presenting the institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence and offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by accredited universities. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(@Sabeelul hidaya) You have mentioned the wrong facebook account, Here's my facebook profile[15] and here's my LinkedIn.
And @Sabeelul hidayais a fake profile created by the haters of University to harm/destroy University. Sabeehul Hidaya Islamic College is a college affiliated by Darul Huda Islamic University and the @Sabeelul hidaya is a fake profile created only for harming articles related to Darul Huda Islamic University.
Please help Wikipedia grow, not to bring your personal interests on this Global Encyclopedia.
Sabeelul hidaya is an Arabic word meaning "way of guidance". I do not think there is anything wrong with this name, contrary to username policy. However, there is no objection to change if the admins suggest me that you behave. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okey! Agreed.
Can't be there different people with the same name? its not me that you're talking about above!
Prove your identity first and please help Wikipedia to be clean, not to be scrap. Tinkvu (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an old account, you should mention it on your User Page. Tinkvu (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinkvu: Would you like to collaborate with this discussion? Just talk if you're interested or I have other work to do. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rules are rules, always (You have to know it first).
And stop searching for the students of DHIU (who don't even have any user account on Wikipedia) with the same as that of the users contributing for telling that the article's self published.
I can prove that you're wrong. Tinkvu (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinkvu: Try to prove it with strong evidence. My first question. I have established on the basis of evidence that Suhail Hidaya is the major contributor to all Wikipedia articles related to Darul Huda. Can you prove otherwise? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suhail Hidaya's last contribution for the article Darul Huda Islamic University was on 4 April,2020[2].
It's 06 January 2022. And the article and everything was edited by many people later. It's around two years and more than 200 edits were done to the article later[3]. How can you still say that his contributions still exist on the article? Please explain @Sabeelul hidaya! Tinkvu (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinkvu: I did not refer to him as the latest editor, but as the major contributor. Who renamed the article Darul Huda Islamic Academy as Darul Huda Islamic University and created all related articles (approximately 13) on all non-English Wikipedias? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I've replied to all your questions and please check if you have'nt seen.
What do we needt do do at en-Wiki? Given the above I would suggest the article is moved back and move-protected. The Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi article is now at draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi - moved by Barkeep49 as the result of a request. As an unreferened BLP that has not been worked on in eighteen months or more, I sugest that it is deleted and both draft and article titles are salted. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darul Huda Islamic University is a recognized university in Kerala and Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi is the vice-chancellor of the University. Do not delete articles related to the university and do not take any actions against the Wikipedians because they are published on English, Malayalam and Arabic only after checking the grammar and making good sources and necessary news coverages. This is not a promotion. We have provided accurate information about this university. We write clearly on different Wikipedias so as not to be misunderstood by the general public, universities and other institutions that search for information about the university on Google and other search engines. Even if you delete it now or later, we will rewrite it with the help of Wikipedia's admins. I'm asking the admins what's wrong with using the university's real name on Wikipedia. You should not use Wikipedia to protect your interests. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the meaning of promotion? Taking action against articles and accounts is not my goal. The rules should be the same for everyone. I started the discussion here when I saw activities that were against the rules. But the rules do not apply as long as there are paid editors to help you. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious Suhail Chemmad, when you talk about editing Wikipedia, why do you speak in such a plural tone (we have provided ..., we write clearly ..., we will rewrite it ...)? I'd assumed it was a matter of differences in language but seeing: "I'm asking the admins ..." indicates more fluency than I'd originally thought. I'll simply ask: do you edit Wikipedia as an individual or are your efforts coordinated with and for others, perhaps even while sharing accounts?--John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't carefully read this whole thing but I would suggest on the article front we don't need to do anything - my refunding of the article to User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (not the Draft version) and full protecting it ensures it's not put into mainspace. Since many of the editors identified aren't suspect to be socks I'm not sure what else we need to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong place, if you think a AfD is appropriate for Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and it passes a good faith BEFORE then so be it, but I personally would probably be !voting a keep for most sorts of higher education establishments with RS regardless of country, ideology etc. Regarding Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi has at least one viable source as far as I can tell, I wished i'd moved and stewarded into draftspace rather than letter CFORKs. The newer CFORK draft is way off mainspace requirements at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Common names are fine. Loads of organisations don't use their legal name. Secretlondon (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for devoting your precious time to this. I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.
There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.
I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suhail Hidaya, Aaqib Anjum Aafi and Irshad are not any relationship to the University. They are respected contributors and promoters of the Wikipedia. Don't drag anyone into controversy unnecessarily. It will destroy their sincerity. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent rather more time on this than I'd planned, it seems clear that there is an active and sophisticated brigade of accounts - meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets - dedicated to claiming for the Darul Huda Islamic Academy the status of university, to which it has no right. The appropriate action on their article Darul Huda Islamic University is being [16] discussed elsewhere, the possible relevance for this board is admin action on the puppets. I'd have thought a Wikimedia-wide topic ban to be appropriate. Hunc (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: (Pinging you because you've been pinged above), Admins should take this accusation against longtime contributors like me serious. I was browsing through Islam related AfDs and came here through the Darul Huda AfD and I find this guy is here accusing me of not only being a paid editor but someone who is involved in some stupid conspiracy. Strange that I wasn't even notified on talk page which is necessary and "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.". I seek admin help against this bullying and harassment unnecessarily. I haven't even ever edited that page. The best part of this game is that the user who has accused me is just here since last month..... ─ The Aafī(talk) 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi I've been pinged three or four times to this thread. I have made the only substantive comment I am planning to make above. I simply don't have the capacity to dive into this. I'm sorry that I can't look further into what is troubling you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt whatsoever that TheAafi is here to build an encyclopedia and their contributions are in good faith. They have been completely transparent in their interests and RL pursuits and I'm not aware of a single edit of theirs made with malintent. I find the accusations against them specious at best and should not be entertained. This approaches BOOMERANG territory to my mind. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability
As I wrote here at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and as I was suggested to by Tayi Arajakate, I am asking with no prejudice that an admin review the RfC, and a close review for a reclose/amendment. As I wrote there, I am not sure that "[e]ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. [emphasis mine; strong consensus and successive close wording is bolded in original], and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. I think both sides gave good arguments for either 'green'-rating (with bias and attribution like The Intercept and Reason) and 'yellow'-rating (no consensus).
It is not so easy to tell which colour better reflects consensus, and if a review would change that; however, my main issue is with the closure's wording that should be revised and/or improved, and if so, also amend on the same grounds the current (RSP entry), which appears to be too wordy and could be further improved, perhaps due to the similarly too wordy closure that may be, at least in part, due to being closed by a non-admin. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support scrapping the close followed by a re-close preferable from an admin, especially after the closer's response at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Jacobin (magazine). To start, the close is very long and quite hard to navigate. It consists of a lot of redundancies and over-emphasises particular arguments, some of which only had the support of one or two editors. On the other hand, it downplays and in some cases completely ignores other policy based arguments, including those that directly addressed the other set of arguments and enjoyed wider support. In the end, the close somehow ends up coming to a conclusion that is even harsher than most of the opinions expressed by Option 2 !voters and more in line with those expressed by Option 3 !voters. If the response to this is simply that the arguments were stronger, then this is a supervote and not an appropriate summarisation of the consensus. Tayi ArajakateTalk 07:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, it seems. Hopefully, others would eventually comment after looking into it. Tayi ArajakateTalk 12:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unarchiving this section, as it did not recieve sufficient participation and the closer has till now been largely irresponsive to concerns depsite contuining to uphold the close. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Jacobin (magazine). It would be helpful if the community could please weigh in on it and resolve this.
To clarify a bit upon why I said what I said in the previous comment, I'll give one additional example. The close assesses the arguments for poor "sourcing practices of Jacobin" to be stronger than those for "the use of Jacobin as a source for facts by reliable sources". The former argument was expressed or supported by 4 participants and explicitly argued against by 3 participants, while the latter argument was expressed or supported by 6 participants. Note also that the former links "sourcing practices" to WP:LAUNDER, an essay that wasn't even linked by any of the participants and might as well be a novel argument. In contrast, WP:UBO is part of a content guideline.
In addition, looking at the closer's degree of involvement in the topic area of American left wing politics, I do not think they are sufficiently uninvolved. Take for instance, The Grayzone was mentioned by participants in their arguments around sourcing practices, which was prominently reproduced in the close summary, all the while the closer has considerable involvement on its article. This is a fairly controversial and complex RfC, involved significant participation from a number of experienced editors with well articulated reasoning for their positions, but was closed by an involved NAC. My position is therefore to Overturn and reclose by an uninvolved admin regardless of whatever it is, with a close summary that is more concise and coherent. Tayi ArajakateTalk 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost as to what your position is and exactly what the complaint is. If I understand right, your ultimate concern is that its designation is yellow on WP:RSP, rather than green? And that the closer did not close with an option 1/2/3/4 response? On the latter, I don't think that's a requirement; I've closed RSN RfCs with statements not resulting in a clear option answer. RSP regulars can turn the closing statement into whatever colours/entries they think best represent the statement. As for the former, there's no consistency on how that's handled. e.g. The Spectator is pretty decent, but WP:SPECTATOR is yellow. Reason wasn't subject to an RfC and I'm not sure its RSP rating is actually indicative of the consensus in the recent discussion (which, incidentally, it appears I started). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not my concern. The concern is the summary in the RSP entry does reflect the close but the close doesn't reflect the actual discussion. It overweighs arguments presented by those favoring general unreliability. One central point being that it concludes that there is "a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable", which is not reflected in the discussion as it implies that either some form of additional considerations should apply or that it is generally unreliable. Most participants who !voted Option 2 don't indicate support for this kind of position so it appears plain inappropriate. Tayi ArajakateTalk 16:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, the recent discussion on Reason took place after the Jacobin one and the participants supporting "Option 2" make explicit references to the Jacobin. Its entry is not indicative of the consensus of the last discussion though it is for those before it. So it seems instead of the practice shifting, this is an inappropriate close making us deviate from WP:RSOPINION for the sake of consistency. Incidentally, the closer of the Jacobin themselves is the sole person expressing support for the general reliability of Reason with a WP:UBO arguement which is quite ironic. Tayi ArajakateTalk 17:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Reason thing, it is not an outlier. I would point out that the closer has extensively weighed in on RSN discussions over sources perceived to have a left / right bias, virtually always, relative to the average of the discussions, on the side of low reliability for left-wing ones and high reliability for right-wing ones eg. dubious right wing sources [17][18][19][20][21][22] vs. an eagerness to depreciate or limit the use of left-leaning ones [23][24][25][26][27]. On top of that, Mikehawk's top-edited talk pages include Uyghur genocide, Mass killings under communist regimes, and The Grayzone, staking out clearly positions on socialism, the far left, and left-wing media coverage in general. It's fine to hold those positions (eg. believing there are a lot of left-leaning sources we use that we shouldn't is a valid position to take), but when it comes to closing RFCs where that is a major focus of discussion - like, say, a source called Jacobin - they are plainly WP:INVOLVED to the point where I'm honestly slightly shocked they thought it would be acceptable for them to close it or that it escaped notice until now. Would anyone involved in that discussion on the other side have been happy if, instead of weighing in with my opinion in the proper way, I had waited a bit and then closed it as generally-reliable (which I do think is the accurate reading of the consensus?) People knee-deep in something like that should not be closing RFCs about it, especially not in close or controversial cases, and especially not with closes that are so obviously at odds with the actual discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The close is from September and it is almost January. I think we have passed the point of a reclose --GuerilleroParlez Moi 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen older RfCs being closed though I suppose it can be overturned and just left as is, not the option I prefer. Tayi ArajakateTalk 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That close doesn't sufficiently reflect the discussion that gave rise to it. It should be overturned and reclosed, regardless of the amount of time that's passed. A mistake doesn't become less mistaken because it's an old mistake.—S MarshallT/C 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with S Marshall; all else aside the close is plainly a WP:SUPERVOTE, not an accurate summary of the discussion. Numerically the numbers favored option 1; and the closer did not even attempt to argue that the arguments otherwise were stronger, yet they baldly claimed that there was a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable, which is inaccurate to the point of absurdity. No plausible good-faith reading of a strong consensus to that effect exists. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is now quite old, but the alternative to keeping a bad closure is redoing the RfC, which is more of a waste of the community's time. So I would suggest the closure be reversed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the need for a reclose. The window for a review request is completely arbitrary, and can be either minutes or years. CutePeach (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reclose seems reasonable to me. The conclusion does not seem to match the discussion, and the closer does not address this discrepancy in terms of weight-of-arguments or policy. A seemingly-flawed close is a bad close and should be reviewed. Guettarda (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose. Clearly not an accurate summary of the discussion. No need to hold on to it just because of time elapsed, nor for a fresh RFC. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The points regarding the closer's editorial history might be of interest and it is not unreasonable to see this as a less than disinterested close, ie INVOLVED. Nevertheless, it's important to state that problem only arises because the close does not accurately reflect the predominant trajectory of the discussion. Overturn and reclose. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jomart Allaguliyev and socks
On 15 October, Canterbury Tail blocked Jomart Allaguliyev for disruptive editing. I do not exactly what the story was, and this is not important for now. 15 December, Jom Allaguliyev was registered and started editing. A couple of days ago I have realized that he are a sock of a blocked user, and blocked him for block evasion. Today, I saw Jo Allaguliyev on my watchlist. The account was registered yesterday, and I have blocked it as well. The guy does not seem to care that he is blocked, he just registers a new account every time and continues to do what he is doing. I am not sure whether anything should/can be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I have Confirmed that these three accounts are operated by the same person. I agree that not much more can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Probably we just need to block on sight, and I do not see what else we could do.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, blocked this one, as well as a couple of socks who showed up in the meanwhile. I guess he is just going to continue like this for the foreseeable future.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock review of Neutralhomer
NO CONSENSUS
This has been open for 48 hours, and it seems clear that there is not a consensus to unblock at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I blocked User:Neutralhomer indefinitely back on October 20th with a rationale of "continuing to baselessly accuse other editors of racist [sic; I meant racism], after a very clear warning to stop, and a generally over the top battleground mentality for the last 3 days straight". He has requested an unblock on his talk page. I am not going to unblock him myself, as I find the unblock rationale unconvincing. Since CAT:UNBLOCK is backlogged, and (more importantly) since he seems to be questioning the legitimacy of the original block, I'm bringing it here for review.
The warning to stop mentioned above is here: [28] (copy of my email to him, posted with my permission
The final straw edit I mention above is here: [29]
His unblock request rationale, and a discussion with User:HighinBC and myself about it, is here: [30] (permalink as of the time I created this review)
I'm not consistently around, so if any editor notices that NH has asked that something he's written on his talk page be added here, please transfer it over. Finally, it's pretty hard to balance providing sufficient background with not poisoning the well, so I haven't provided many details. I'll answer any specific questions anyone has, but there might be a bit of a delay in my response. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Based on the comments so far, I agree that what I’m requesting and where it should be requested is a little fuzzy. I would not have requested a review of the original block if NH hadn’t requested I post to ANI. If it's framed as a block review, then if people think the original block was fine, but the unblock request is ok, then I’d hate to have to have a separate conversation about that. After reading the comments so far, I think what NH is asking for is a review of the unblock request - only a part of which is the idea the original block was wrong - so my earlier framing might have been unfairly focused on the wrong thing. This should really be an unblock review. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This editor is continuing right now the very same style of prickly, combative, "I was wronged" type of behavior that has led to the current sanctions. It is all well and good to say in an unblock request I apologize to everyone for being a complete asshole and a jerk but that admission loses its impact quickly when that very behavior resumes while discussing the unblock request. I am particularly taken aback by the comment I work in a custodial/construction-esque type of world. Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors. I worked as a hospital janitor nearly 50 years ago and have worked in "construction-esque" work environments ever since, including 28 years of owning and operating a "construction-esque" type business, and I can attest that cussing like sailors has never been acceptable in any work setting I have ever been involved in, and I have been working part time or full time for nearly 60 years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(copied over from NH's talk page - floq) @Cullen328: First off, a hospital with patients and an empty school with just us custodians are two very different things. I have worked in both environments, so I am familiar. Behavior and language is different when teachers/students are in the building, clearly.
Second, the two quoted sentences were from two seperate replies and not from the same sentence or same reply. The second quoted sentence that you used, when fully quoted is As for my "I fucked up" and "I was an asshole", I work in a custodial/construction-esque type of world. Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors. It takes a lot for one of us to say "dude, I fucked up, I'm sorry"...but we do and that's why we work so well together. Guys, typically, don't go into long, flowing apologizes....we just don't. For some of us, "dude, I fucked up, I'm sorry" is as good as it gets. It's genuine, but we are of few words. You get the entire context.
Third, "prickly" and "combative"? I don't think I've ever been called "prickly" and I am most certainly not being combative, just the opposite.
Fourth, I noticed from your userpage that you are from Michigan and now live in California. I'm not sure how they do things there, but I grew up around the Navy (sailors), my Dad was one, I work in a "custodial/construction-esque type of world", there is cussing. Generally, you get a bunch of guys together, we're gonna get relaxed, shoot the shit while working, and we cuss. But all of that that has ZERO barring on this website or my ability to edit it, nor should it. If anything, I have shitty morals.
Hopefully, this helps you understand things a tad bit better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I"m aware of no rule that requires grovelling, or complete agreement with the block. ReykYO! 04:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would be best if Neutralhomer waited the full six-months, before requesting an unblock. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, more bureaucracy. Eventually, the "government" will be larger than the "country". Perhaps we should have some sort of triage noticeboard with a clerk in the cellar deciding which noticeboard to send someone to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a block review. Nobody is really contesting the original block was legitimate, afaik Neutralhomer didn't clearly say he was either. It's more like a block appeal to the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, as I understand it Floquenbeam is requesting a review of the original block rather than the unblock request. So ideally comments should focus on whether the block including duration was justified based on the circumstances of the time, rather than whether their current request justifies an unblock. Editors could of course consider whether NeutralHomer has said something which helps demonstrate that the block wasn't proper. I won't comment on this myself since it seemed like what I said early on may have been part of what resulted in NeutralHomer eventually saying what they said. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It occured to me a few hours later that I should have also said although the (original) focus may have been to review the original block, if editors did want to review the unblock and there was consensus, then this should be actioned even if the original block was considered correct. Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Nil Einne this is framed as a block review. But looking at the thread on Neutralhomer’s talk page the spirit of what he’s looking for is a response to his unblock request - albeit he he may not be totally clear on the procedural niceties. It’s a little unfair on him to not have his unblock request looked at (I’m guessing a block review would almost certainly fail.) DeCausa (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this editor but I was rather shocked to see their block log. By my count this is the 23rd time Neutralhomer has been blocked, and the 4th indefinite block. Even if not all those blocks were justified I have a hard time seeing why we should unblock someone who apparently keeps doing block-worthy stuff. Hut 8.5 14:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor keeps insisting the fact that they didn't evade their block is a reason (perhaps the main reason) we should unblock them. e.g. I keep bringing it up because it shows that I'm basically serving my "sentence" with a door to the "prison" wide open for "escape". Really, it's more like having a door open for escape, with a sniper waiting outside for anyone that is silly enough to go out. Block evasion is a fast-track trip to a community ban that will be harder to undo, and (if kept up) ventures into WP:3X territory. It's a truly awful idea. Not block evading isn't really a valid point in a block appeal, unless the original block was for block evasion. It's just the bare minimum expected. Other things on the usertalk page are also not indicative that the problems have desisted yet. I also think this isn't really a wise idea for someone trying to be unblocked, since per WP:CBAN if this fails then really further appeals also need to be considered by the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I'm the first to call, "unblock per ROPE", but Floquenbeam's original block reason combined with Hut 8.5's comment make me pause; unfortunately something slightly more convincing than usual is required, and I'm not sure I'm seeing it right now. Of course, that could in turn be due to a confusion of process as mentioned by DeCausa. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not among the great nor the good of Wikipedia, so I am not even sure I should weigh in, but I think everyone deserves second (and third, etc.) chances, and I do see some self-reflection here. That said, NH's addendum above gave me some real pause--I don't like the "it's just the way I am" defense, and the trick of being combative and prickly while denying being prickly and combative is...something. All that said, I would lean towards unblock with the knowledge that further interactions will be held to higher scrutiny. But I will leave the decision to wiser folk. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock. This is pretty bad as far as unblock requests go. Better than "it's all everyone else's fault," but still bad. Going right to "... but I could have gotten around the block" is not a good sign, as well as the multiple attempts to blame it on his mental health (while simultaneously being angry at other people's use of colloquialisms as somehow being attacks on his mental health). I say wait the standard 6 months before even considering an appeal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a very productive long-time editor, which counts for something, who has given a very good apology including an honest explanation of how some men apologize. Now, going forward, I hope he remembers something well, relating to his own words: "Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors." Sir, who do you think edits Wikipedia and reads your comments? Teachers, kids, women, men, children, the general public, mothers, whores, bellmen and thieves. Some of those won't mind rough language, and would pay for it, while it may chase others away from this encyclopedia that we all work on. You are responsible for Wikipedia's reputation and name as much as Jimbo Wales or the tens of thousands of others who edit but, in your case as a good long-term editor, you should either be proud of working here or at least pretend to be. Wikipedia holds up the honor of knowledge, and people volunteering here - all of them but especially the long-termers like yourself - believe they have something to share with the world and the project. When you say anything on a talk page maybe imagine you are talking to a 12 year-old girl, because you very well might be. Do good work, live a clean Wikipedian life, and wash behind the ears fella. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FWIW, no administrator has yet accepted or declined Neutralhomer's unblock request at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GoodDay, I've added a "hold please" template to the unblock request as discussion here may affect its outcome and its better to have everything in one place at a time. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Hut 8.5. User has been getting blocked, apologizing very sincerely, and getting re-blocked for the same behavior since 2007. This is clearly not a case of a young person who will mature with time, nor a short-term issue caused by temporary stress, but fundamentally part of how this user edits. Some people, however talented or intelligent, are just not temperamentally suited to working in Wikipedia's collaborative environment and I think that's the case here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not a fan of the "Okay, but this is the very very very last chance, and we mean it this time!" approach. I think after a certain point, the community needs to make a decision as to whether or not someone with 4 logged indef blocks represents a net negative to the project.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Hut 8.5 and PMC. I usually never comment about these things, but I watched this whole thing unfold and was taken aback by the sheer anger NH displayed. Someone with twenty-three blocks and four indefinite blocks to their name should've learned years ago that their approach isn't working, but I guess it hasn't sunk in yet. Also the whole "I have a mobile account and could've socked but didn't" argument is so weird and speaks for itself really. JCW555talk ♠ 21:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There comes a point that you have to cut your losses and move on. One indef? Sure, it's possible someone had a bad day of things. But 4 indef blocks? That's a pattern of behavior that obviously is not compatible to working withing a collaborative environment. It's not a matter of if they commit an act to cause yet another indef block situaton, but WHEN. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having reviewed the links above, this battleground behavior is unacceptable. This, this, this, this, and this cannot be brushed away. WaltCip is spot on here. GABgab 22:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to oppose, but I am certainly not going to support. I recommended this user take advantage of the standard offer and wait of full 6 months but they did not take my advice. I don't think they are ready to come back at this point, they are not yet in a collaborative mood frankly. They are a very long term contributor and I sincerely hope at some point I may be able to welcome them back. But I feel it is too soon. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask. 23:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on block log There’s a few comments above about Neutralhomer’s block log. I would just highlight that the vast majority of his blocks (and all the heavy duty ones excluding this onE) are pre-2013. Then, there’s nothing until 2018, then 3 short blocks before the current incident. Yes, it’s not great but not as bad as the headline looks. There’s a distinction to be made between his first clearly rocky 5 years and his last 10 years. He’s also made 75k edits (half to article space) and created 400+ articles. Not saying that excuses anything - just giving some additional context beyond the current behaviour which is obviously sub-optimal. DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still don't know why he's posting about his real life employment. That's irrelevant material, in association to this 'review', he's requested. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per that whole thing where he called me a racist. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock per Hut 8.5 and PMC. It takes talent to get blocked 23 times with 4 indefs. And that talent spells out WP:CIR and net negative. Fool Wikipedia once, shame on you. Fool Wikipedia 23 times (with 4 indefs), shame on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: The unblock request, and in particular the Look I didn't even block evade even though I could have easily subverted that Wikipedia policy [like he's been subverting and ignoring Wikipedia policies and racking up the 23 previous blocks], is wildly inappropriate and wildly misunderstanding of the spirit of Wikipedia and to me adds to the reasons he should not be unblocked. This is in addition to responding to every single !voter here by pinging them on his talkpage. Please stop digging your HOLE any deeper than it already is. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock Ok, I am not an admin, but I see repentance sufficient in my view to warrant the handcuffs being taken off. Granted, without admin goggles I cannto see everything. Even so, and considering their prior track record, I believe this block is able to be lifted. The basis for my opinion is the concept of prevention versus thag of punishment. I think the block has acted preventatively and that use has now expired. I feel we have moved into a less than appropriate phase of punishment. If it is felt that it "should last some time longer" then that is a topic for discussion. If that is the feeling of this discussioin then give it a limit. Make that a couple of days past the close of this discussion, make it a couple of months, but make it finite whatever you decide. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 09:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock per Softlavender. This has gone on for more than long enough, and the unconvincing unblock statement indicates to me that this editor would benefit from a lengthy period away from Wikipedia if they want to come back. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting boorish behavior. Please keep it on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Neutralhomer. We're all happy that you're proud of being a custodian. Mention it enough times on your talkpage & perhaps we'll come up with a medal, to pin it on you. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool? Don't recall GoodDay saying he didn't. And GoodDay has just as much right to say what he did. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like kicking someone when they're down. And I do not want to encourage a culture where anything people say in their own defense is to be snickered at. ReykYO! 19:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I could be missing context, but NeutralHomer's edit here appears to be saying that if one says "competence is required," they are a racist and a bigot? Really? Please tell me I'm missing something, because for someone to say that after having been here for 14 years is rather shocking. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The context is buried deep in the original ANI discussion, so it's easy to miss. The short, short version is that NH misunderstood a comment about a user having the same name as a Mexican film as disparaging that user's heritage, and then took the CIR comment as somehow supporting this imagined attack on said user. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now and later. I see a decade-long appetite for personalization, insults, assumptions of bad faith, and slap-fights. It's time one of these indef blocks actually sticks for good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose utter time sink. User shows interest in re-fighting the same battles and displaying same temperament rather than even fake contrition for the sake of being unblocked. No indication this will end differently than any of the prior indef/unblocks. Time for both sides to move on. StarMississippi 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC) ETA: I've seen his response to me, it doesn't change one bit of my comment and reinforces my time sink belief. I stand by my oppose. StarMississippi 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If Neutralhomer 'still' hasn't evaded his block in anyway by April 2022. I'll support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
further discussion
Not mentioned in the close is that interpreting this as a discussion of whether to unblock has led Beeblebrox not only to close Neutralhomer's open unblock request but to interpret the closure of this discussion as converting the block into a CBAN, requiring the editor to go through the ban appeals process: diff. I don't think that's fair: conversion into a CBAN was only mentioned once above, by ProcrastinatingReader, nor do I think that was in Floquenbeam's mind when he opened this section; there's discussion above about exactly what the focus of the section should be. Also, while as I have stated on Neutralhomer's talk page, no single human can master the totality of this project's bureaucratic rules and procedures, I disagree that a section not explicitly intended as a community appeal of a non-community block in lieu of a talk-page appeal using the unblock appeal template must or should be treated as the last chance appeal that exhausts regular appeal options. This section changed focus as it went and was never defined enough to play that role; Neutralhomer's not realizing it would be interpreted that way was fair enough, and I've pinged Floquenbeam (although I'm sure I'm bothering him in so doing) because I'm not sure he saw it that way either. As I said in my contribution that I took too long typing and had instead dumped on Neutralhomer's talk page (partly because I hadn't read that bit from Beeblebrox and hadn't imagined that would have been the interpretation of the force of this section), what I took from the discussion above is that Neutralhomer needed to file a better appeal (endorsing Floquenbeam's reaction). In my non-expert view, Neutralhomer's vindicated the decision to restore his talk-page access. No admin had actually come by and rejected that open appeal; it was placed on hold and then procedurally closed. Do we lose anything by letting him try again in the regular way to craft an unblock request that somebody will accept? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A site CBAN is just a block that requires community consensus to undo. When a block appeal is referred to the community, and is considered and declined by the community (i.e. not just immediately archived or receives minimal participation), then it's only right that the community has to consider future block appeals. Given that the community has now said it doesn't support an unblock, it would obviously be inappropriate for a single admin to unilaterally undo it, thus it is classed as a community ban. This is outlined in WP:CBAN, Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Routes to unblock, and resulted from clarification in an RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this, if I had intended to tell NH he could now only appeal to ArbCom, I would have said that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the relevant section was, as far as I know, boldly added six months ago, and I don't believe that is long enough for the onus to shift from those who might want to keep it to those who might want to remove it, particularly as it appears based on Yngvadottir's comments to have gone largely unnoticed in that time. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant text has been present on the Wikipedia:Banning policy page since 2007. It typically is mentioned during unblock requests that are reviewed by the community. isaacl (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is a logical non-sequitur. The community not coming to a consensus to unblock an indeffed user at this time is not the same as forming a consensus to community ban a user. I have not seen this being done in practice much historically. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask. 06:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Yngvadottir. We didn't decide to CBAN Neutralhomer.—S MarshallT/C 09:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What did we decide? GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We decided not to unblock at this time.—S MarshallT/C 09:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between 'not coming to a consensus to unblock' as HighInBC puts it and 'consensus has formed and is not to unblock'. The latter is what triggers a defacto CBAN per the above. Of the outright !votes above, 3 supports, 12 opposes, and assorted other comments that were overwhelmingly negative. In order to judge the consensus you need to look at the comments themselves rather than just the support/oppose. This was not a 'consensus has not been formed' situation. It was very much a 'this editor should not be unblocked' from both the content and tone of the comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only because what the section was supposed to be about was unclear at the outset and conversation drifted. With this kind of unfocussed process, it's equally possible, and fairer, to read it as "unclear outcome, the peanut gallery spoke on many things". (And even though it was an unfocused discussion that I doubt many participants realized risked being read as a community ban discussion, there was push-back against the point about the block log.) We have that difference of viewpoint demonstrated here: S Marshall and HighInBC also didn't see it as the community reaching a consensus regarding the merits of unblocking per se. Plus it wasn't a community-imposed block. This has jumped the rails. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously saying that "consensus not to unblock yet" is the same thing as "community ban"? Because if that's written in the rules somewhere, it shouldn't be.—S MarshallT/C 11:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be as much support for "not to unblock (full stop)" as "not to unblock yet" but perhaps actually putting that question to the community instead of wondering whether it can be inferred de facto from another discussion would be the best option. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ 11:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox's closing statement is clearly correct. Yes, the community does reach a rough consensus that Neutralhomer should remain blocked for the time being. But when I read what the "oppose unblock" side say, what I see is that they are not of one mind. Opposes such as Hut8.5's reduce to: "Keep blocked and the community should adopt the block as a de facto CBAN"; but opposes such as Cullen328's or GoodDay's reduce to: "Don't unblock at this time on the basis of this appeal." I think the second kind of oppose has the majority, so I don't think it's right to parse that discussion as "The community adopts this block as a CBAN."—S MarshallT/C 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with S Marshall (and Beeblebrox). Yes, a community ban is traditionally understood as a block that no administrator would undo. That's not what happened here and that's not what the discussion was about. There are clearly administrators who would unblock, given a different time or somewhat different circumstances. Community bans require the question squarely presented. Mackensen(talk) 12:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I regret my poorly formulated start to the thread, but honestly don’t think it was the deciding factor on whether this is a cban or not. This was brought here specifically at NH’s request, so it doesn’t fall into the 3rd party request category. That said, and I have said this many times before, I think a consensus not to unblock at this time should not be interpreted as a community ban. I despise this interpretation. If people wanted it to be a community ban they could specifically say so. If NH comes up with a decent, self-aware unblock request in the future, any reviewing admin should be able to unblock. But as it stands now, I could not undo my own block in the future. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue becomes the distinction between a CBAN and an indef block in this scenario. A consensus has formed not to unblock. That consensus is among a panel of Neutralhomer's peers that includes both admins and non-admins. However, if we choose not to interpret that this is a CBAN, an independent administrator can still (as they have done many times before for other users) unblock Neutralhomer on their own volition, and ignore the straw-counting consensus that was established in the above thread. That admin wouldn't even have to give a reason, since WP:WHEEL - as much as we hate to admit it - favors the first mover. I'm aware this is a highly cynical outlook and assumes that no unblock is valid in this scenario, but I can see why Yngvadottir chose to bring this up. But I agree that because the discussion was not explicitly about a CBAN, that a CBAN is not in force. We revert back to the original standing indef block which was appealed in good faith. WaltCip-(talk) 13:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between a CBAN & a INDEFBAN? The lad is blocked until at least April 2022. It's a ban, leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here long enough to know the difference. INDEF can still be lifted at any time. CBAN cannot be lifted unless there is a community consensus at AN. A CBAN is far more strict than a standard INDEF. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the matter is that those opposing the unblock at this time did not necessarily know that they were enacting a community ban. It is a clumsy and unneeded part of policy to interpret a lack of desire to unblock at this time as a binding decision to not unblock without a higher standard in the future. If they community wants to community ban someone, they can explicitly make this decision.
I spoke in opposition to this unblock at this time because it is too early, but I would have opposed a community ban if that was the question on the table. It is a disservice to remove this nuance from the community's decision making. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask. 22:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of clarity, I don't in any way fault Floquenbeam. I pinged him in large part to get his take on the issue. I am also not faulting Beeblebrox's close of this thread. However, I'm not sure everyone has noted that the result is still defined on Neutralhomer's talk page as a CBAN. May I suggest that based on this further discussion, that should be revised? I think it's only fair to him. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree completely Yngvadottir. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask. 03:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NH's ban was not initially a community ban. Finagling it into one now would merely be punishing him for appealing it as well as being underhanded and malicious. ReykYO! 01:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too neck deep in this discussion, but I certainly think it would be appropriate for User:Beeblebrox (as uninvolved closer), or some other uninvolved admin, to post to NH's page that the consensus in this section (and a re-reading of the closed section) is that there is no consensus for a de facto or de jure community ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. ArbCom's been a bit of a zoo and I quite forgot to check back on this thread today. I'd like to be clear that my statement to NH was based solely on policy as currently written, which I was careful to review before making it. I chose to close this exactly because I am uninvolved and have no strong opinion one or the other. All that being said, consensus is Wikipedia's primary method of decision making, and I believe there is at least a rough consensus here that NH's block should continue to be regarded as normal block and not a CBAN. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, his block should merely expire after six months. But, it ain't up to me. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated problematic edits [31], [32], [33], adding a period after length units mm, μm and m. Called me an "IDIOT" in their second edit, for which I gave a final MOS warning and a 3rd level NPA warning (given previous NPA-warnings at User_talk:Koitus~nlwiki#November_2020). Third edit was after two explicit warnings on their talk page with invitations to go and have a look at the relevant unit articles.
No response on their user talk. I think some administrator intervention is needed here. - DVdm (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Though I'm not familiar with the content of most of the user's contributions, the longstanding editing pattern, often marked by a series of rapid consecutive edits with no edit summary, this combined with zero communication on their talkpage, seems on its own to be disruptive. Erictalk 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: after [35] by user FyzixFighter, nothing but silence. Lacking any feedback from user Koitus~nlwiki, one can only hope that's a good sign... - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it was not a good sign. See [36] right after my previous note—with u-template-ping to the user, so they have read this and then decided to have another go at it. They are obviously playing a block-me-please game here. Can some administrator take action for flagrant 3RR disruption here? TIA. - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it means something different in Dutch, given the ~nlwiki suffix, but the English phonetical of the first part of their username sure resembles a probable username violation. Hog FarmTalk 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not mean anything different in Dutch.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like they got block/banned from the Dutch Wiki, so they came here, calling themselves FuckTheDutchWiki. - DVdm (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication that username has ever existed, the ~nlwiki suffix is from a pre-SUL username that was shifted from nl:User:Koitus, as can be seen at nl:User talk:Koitus. Also, they are most pointedly not blocked on nl-Wiki. Please consider striking your comments as completely inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would be unlikely. - DVdm (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, @Primefac: I meant of course that a related username at the Dutch Wiki would be unlikely. Thanks for having had a look at this. Considering your data, comment struck. - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: and here we go again: [37], twice, without any comment, undoing this and this proper MOS-supported edits by user FyzixFighter - DVdm (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked for 48 hours for the edit warring, and warned them about the PA. GirthSummit (blether) 23:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: thanks. See you in a few days, I guess (somewhat pessimistically) - DVdm (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AP2 topic ban
Request withdrawn, and consensus is for the topic ban to remain. Fences&Windows 18:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will explain one by one about the edits that played a major role in editing articles related to American politics at the time and getting "AP2 topic ban".
1. I tried to change the political position from "Centre to centre-left" to "Centre-left" in an article related to each state of the U.S. Democratic Party. The reason is that the U.S. Democratic Party is not classified as "Centre" in any way in South Korean political standards. Also, even by U.S. political standards, the U.S. Democratic Party is never classified as "Centre". Of course, the U.S. Democratic Party could be classified as "Centre" by European standards, but I thought the U.S. does not belong to Europe and does not have to follow the standards of Europe's political spectrum.
Representatively, the famous encyclopedia in South Korea, Daum Encyclopedia, defines the Democratic Party of the United States as follows:
"The Democratic Party of the United States is a centre-left party that seeks to expand welfare policies and protect minority human rights." ( 미국의 민주당은 복지정책 확대, 소수자 인권보호 등을 추구하는 중도좌파 정당이다)[1]
I have never seen any Korean paper or South Korean academic materials describing the U.S. Democratic Party as "Centre" (중도) or "Centrism" (중도주의). DPK (Democratic Party of Korea), on the other hand, is clearly described as "Centre" (중도) and even as "Centre-right" (중도우파). However, DPK is classified as center-left by South Korean political standards. There is not a single South Korean who thinks the U.S. Democratic Party is in the same political position ("centre to centre-left") as DPK. DPK does not have social democrats, let alone socialists, and there are even a number of social conservatives who oppose homosexuality. (when translating into Korean, "liberal" in the United States does not translate as "liberal" but often translates as "progressive" to suit South Korean sentiment.)[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
There is a South Korean party that showed a similar social liberal tendency to the Democratic Party of the United States. It's the Uri Party. The Uri Party is never classified as "Centre" / "Centrist" by South Korean political standards.
However, I will explain why I did this editing. In many Europe and Asia, conservative liberalism means a political force on the left rather than liberal conservatism. Conservative liberalism is a "centrist" ideology in the book Liberal Party in Europe, written by Emily van Haute and Caroline Close.
It is true that the current RGG has become much more rightist than the Rockefeller Republican days. But on the contrary, this is the same for BDC. There are quite a few evaluations that BDC is no longer conservative.[10] BDC is now evaluated as socially liberal (=culturally liberal), so it can never be seen as conservative.[11]
Traditionally, however, BDC is conservative within the Democratic Party and RGG is considered liberal within the Republican Party. That's why I wanted to describe BDC as ideologically conservative and RGG as ideologically liberal. Politicians who are closely related to RGG right now, such as Charlie Baker, Bill Weld, Phil Scott and Larry Hogan, are often described as "liberal" in the U.S. media.[12]
This is why I insisted on the term "conservative liberalism". BDC has traditionally been conservative, and RGG has traditionally been liberal. However, RGG is not on a social liberal (centre-left) line at the Democratic level. I thought BDC should be described as conservative and RGG as liberal.
South Korean media value social issues more than economic issues, which is why Nancy Pelosi is described as a left-wing not an absolute center-left.[13] For your information, Hankook Ilbo is a media that is considered "Centrist" or "Liberal" by South Korean political standards. (Of course, "liberal" here will not be "liberal" in the context of American politics.)
Other than that, I admit that the attempt to modify several articles related to American politics into terms that are not used in the United States is wrong. South Korean right-wingers and even far-rightists claim themselves to be "liberal." (Of course, South Korean media never call South Korean conservatives "liberal.")
In the future, I will only adhere to the concepts used in the United States when editing American politics, and I will never apply my OR or terms used in other regions other than the United States to American politics. Also, I will not change the "political position" recklessly in articles related to the U.S. Democratic Party. I request the release of my AP2 topic ban. --Storm598 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^""오바마, 질서 강조하는 진보주의에 기반해 견고"<타임>" ["Obama, progressivism that emphasizes order, it's solid." <Time>]. Yonhap News Agency (in Korean). 16 November 2008. Retrieved 28 September 2021. 버락 오바마 미국 대통령 당선자의 탄생을 낳은 정치적 연합은 과거 한 시대를 풍미했던 루즈벨트나 레이건 대통령을 탄생시킨 정치적 연합보다 더 견고하며 그 이유는 오바마의 지지기반이 진보주의(liberalism)로 무장돼 있기 때문이라는 주장이 제기됐다.
^"교수들이 대개 진보적이라고? 그런 사람이 교수가 되기 때문!" [Professors are usually progressive? Because that kind of person becomes a professor!]. The Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). 20 January 2010. Retrieved 31 October 2021. 미국에서 대학교수들은 대부분 진보적인(liberal) 성향을 보이는 것이 사실이다. [In fact, most university professors in the United States tend to be progressive (liberal).]
^"[박찬수 칼럼] '자유'와 민주주의, 리버럴" [[Park Chansoo's column] "Liberal" and democracy, liberalism.]. The Hankyoreh (in Korean). 3 July 2018. Retrieved 30 October 2021. ... '자유'라는 말만큼 요즘 그 의미가 새롭게 다가오는 단어도 드물다. 주말마다 광화문에서 열리는 태극기집회에 가면 '자유민주주의 수호'란 구호를 귀가 따갑도록 들을 수 있다. 그분들이 말하는 자유는 자유한국당의 '자유'와 일맥상통하지만, 1960년 4·19 직후 김수영 시인이 쓴 시의 한 구절 "어째서 자유에는 피의 냄새가 섞여 있는가를"에 나오는 '자유'와는 사뭇 다르다 ... 십수년 전 워싱턴특파원 시절, 가장 곤혹스러운 영어단어 중 하나가 '리버럴'(liberal)이었다. 미국에선 '리버럴' 하면 보통 민주당 지지자나 진보주의자를 뜻하는데 ... [... Few words have a new meaning these days as much as the word "liberal". If you go to the Taegukgi rallies held at Gwanghwamun every weekend, you can hear the slogan "Guardian of Liberal Democracy." The liberal they say is in line with the Liberty Korea Party's "liberal", but it is clearly different from "liberal" in a verse from a poem written by poet Kim Soo-young shortly after April 19, 1960. ... When I was a Washington correspondent decades ago, one of the most embarrassing English words was "liberal". In the United States, "liberal" usually means a Democratic supporter or progressive, but if it is incorporated into a sentence ...]
^"옳은소리 하고도 공화당 주류에게 몰매 맞은 트럼프" [Trump was beaten up by the mainstream Republicans even though he said something right.]. Kyunghyang Shinmun (in Korean). 15 February 2016. Retrieved 31 October 2021. 13일 저녁 사우스캐롤라이나에서 열린 TV 토론회에서 트럼프가 했던 '조지 W 부시의 이라크 침공 실패' 발언은 공화당 주류 정치인들의 격분을 자아냈다. ... 테드 크루즈 상원의원(텍사스)은 트럼프가 보수주의자인 체 하지만 원래는 매우 진보적인(liberal) 생각을 가진 사람이라며 공격했다. ... [... Trump's remarks on "George W. Bush's failure to invade Iraq" at a TV debate in South Carolina on the evening of the 13th aroused outrage among mainstream Republican politicians. ... Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) attacked Trump, saying he pretended to be a conservative but originally had a very progressive (liberal) idea. ...]
^"트럼프 "진보적 할리우드는 최고 수준 인종차별주의자"" [Trump said, "Progressive Hollywood is the best racist".]. Yonhap News Agency (in Korean). 10 August 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2021. 도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령은 9일(현지시간) "진보적(liberal) 할리우드는 엄청난 분노와 증오에 찬 최고 수준의 인종차별주의자"라며 미 영화계 일각을 향해 비난을 쏟아냈다.
^"바이든 내각 거센 女風… 라이스·플러노이 '외교안보 양대 축' 예고" [There is a strong female wind blowing in Biden's cabinet... Rice · Flournoy heralded a "two pillars of diplomatic security."]. Maeil Business Newspaper (in Korean). 8 November 2020. Retrieved 30 October 2021. 적극적 대외 개입정책을 지지하는 이른바 '진보적 매파(liberal hawks)'인 그가 국무장관으로 발탁될 경우 대북 정책에 지대한 영향을 미칠 것으로 보인다. [If he is selected as the Secretary of State, the so-called "progressive hawks" (liberal hawks) who support active foreign intervention policies, it is expected to have a profound impact on North Korea's policy.]
For the sake of avoiding any confusion, here is the original ban discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at recent contributions shows continued prolific adding of various political categories to all sorts of pages, along with the creation of new templates and the addition of these into various articles. This broad labelling is being used not only for modern politics, but even for historical groups in a way that completely changes the meaning. Few of these edits come with sources, and a similar minority come with any sort of edit summary or explanation. I am not convinced that such behaviour will somehow be restrained in American politics articles when it continues to take place (despite the topic ban and related discussions) in all other politics articles. CMD (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be especially careful when it comes to editing American politics. Unlike political articles from other countries, I will not overuse related templates or categories when it comes to American politics. However, I have studied European politics for more than 10 years and have considerable knowledge, so you don't have to worry about European politics.--Storm598 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vast majority of this request is an attempt to justify their original problematic edits, all of which was stated in the original discussions. Tacking on a "I'll be good this time" promise to "I never was wrong if you look at it from this perspective" justification rarely turns out well for the requester or the project. I'm not sure what Storm intends to do if the ban is lifted and I lack confidence that the problematic behaviors won't repeat. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that my editing was right, but I'm explaining my intention of why I did it at the time. I'm not saying that my editing was right. If my view on American politics is wrong, can you tell me what is wrong? If there is anything wrong, I will change myself. If the topic van is resolved, I will not do the editing that is likely to cause the dispute, discuss it enough in Talk, and then after reaching an agreement with other users, I will edit it.--Storm598 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there is also the issue of fairness. I admit that I did a problematic editing in an article related to American politics. That's definitely my fault. Likewise, BMK has made OR-based edits in numerous Asian political articles and some European political articles. No one is taking issue with that. (Regarding the political position of a particular political party, the Administrators said in Talk that it is a rough matter, not a disciplinary matter.) This is probably because he is seen as a person who has been active in Wikipedia long before me. #, # --Storm598 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Storm598:, it is not an issue of fairness. There's no such thing as an objective "fair" that we can apply and every editor things what's fair is something different. Bringing it up yet again shows definitively that you are unable to understand that we are discussing your editing and not anyone else's. See WP:NOTTHEM. You may not perceive your continued defense of your edits as trying to say they were right but such defense (at great length and with great repetition) shows you are clearly unable to accept the overwhelming judgment of your peers that they were incorrect and disruptive. Your idiosyncratic application of your own understanding of terms to a different context and trying to yet again explain them away shows you have not yet learned why you were topic banned. Topping it off with: "If my view on American politics is wrong, can you tell me what is wrong?" is almost unbelievable. You clearly need to understand the topic area far, far better and you have no business editing in the area until you educate yourself much more. This all adds up to a request that, once again, demonstrates the necessity of maintaining the TB. I have no particular personal desire to see this continue but each of your attempts to discuss this topic and the topic ban shows that the area is likely to experience further disruption without these restrictions. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 04:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admitted that my editing itself was wrong at the time. I judged terms that are not used in American politics on my own arbitrary basis and clearly stated that it was wrong in itself. I'm really not going to do devastating editing. --Storm598 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would have been a far better appeal if it had simply consisted of the last two paragraphs, starting at "I admit that the attempt to modify several articles..." Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some things I want to get back the editorial authority of American political articles, but there are actually other reasons. I'm a cyber stalking and online abuse victim. In order not to be tracked, I may stop using this account and act as a new account after using it for a few years. But in order to do that, it's possible only when I completely release the AP2 ban. I understand that it is a violation of regulations to edit in Wikipedia as if someone else is with a new account without a specific van being released. --Storm598 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It feels really hard to accept the last paragraph of this appeal given the twelve (!) paragraphs of justification above it. If an editor is unable to restrain themselves from expounding at that length on their opinions about Korean and European views of left-right politics vs. American ones in a ban appeal (where you would expect them to be on their best behavior), it's difficult to imagine they would be able to do so while editing. --Aquillion (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When editing articles related to American politics, I will use only common concepts in the United States and try to fit the sentiment of American editors. In the past, we tried to edit articles related to American politics in international terms, but we will never do so in the future. I will respect American exceptionalism, and unlike European articles, I will be careful when editing. (European politics is a field that I know very well, so I can do bold editing.) --Storm598 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and I think we should consider a wider restriction. Since the TBAN last June, Storm598 made one other unblock request, in October. It was on its way to near-certain failure before the request was withdrawn. The issues with the appeal were the same as displayed here; they are so similar that Eggishorn's comment from October and their comment above are practically the same. "Oppose Half the request is stating that they will stay away from the edits that caused the topic ban, the rest of it is stating that they weren't wrong in the first place. If the former is true, then they do not need the TB lifted. If the latter is true, then we need the topic ban because they haven't learned how to edit in the topic. Either way, this request gives no confidence in their ability to edit in this topic." Last month, Storm598 started an AN section seeking sanctions against another user. Eventually closed without action, the section discussed a political party position, just like the incident that led to the TBAN, only this time it with different countries. Storm598 violated the AmPol TBAN during the discussion. Some users weighed in at one of the relevant article talk pages, leading to apparent consensus to leave the political position out of the infobox entirely. Yesterday, Storm598 reverted to their preferred version without building any new consensus. Storm598 also violated the TBAN at their own user talk page in October. Firefangledfeathers 03:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article "Liberal Party (UK)" you mentioned, I edited it to induce other users to Talk Page. If someone canceled my editing in the article afterwards, I wouldn't have tried to restore the editing again.--Storm598 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as for the last link, a user named Ezhao02 made a wrong edit in the article Party for Democracy and Peace, and I just made another analogy that was easy for him to understand to point that out. PDP is never recognized as a center-left party in South Korea. --Storm598 (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you were saying. I will learn more about American politics-related news and books and study them. And after a long time, I'll be more mature and come back, and I won't justify my past edits.--Storm598 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained why I did the wrong editing in the American political article at the time, not justifying the editing. However, I think you still don't trust me, so I'll cancel this discussion again. I may also have a lot of shortcomings. I'll talk about it again in a year or two.--Storm598 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel the corresponding section. Administrators are welcome to finish this section. I don't think I'm trusted by many users yet, and I don't think I'm mature either.--Storm598 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My block of ThePresidentoftheworld
Earlier I blocked User:ThePresidentoftheworldhere as NOTHERE. @Floquenbeam: enquired as to why I had blocked the user (see [38]). While Floquenbeam has accepted my explanation for the block, I have decided on reflection to bring the block here for review. I have no objection to any admin modifying or removing the block. - Donald Albury 03:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse blockThePresidentoftheworld (talk·contribs) was active on my talk for reasons that are still unclear but which caused me to look at their edits. We can never be certain of the exact reason for their approach but it wasn't going to work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn block. The guy doesn't appear to be blatantly racist. The person is taking a controversial position on ethnicity, one not necessarily supported by the facts. But they're not being hateful against a group of people from what I can see. People POV pushing in American politics aren't treated this badly. I'd like to see a narrower t-ban from Taino related topics possibly enforced by page restrictions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to espouse positions unsupported by facts. Therefore, the user is not here to build the encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra(talk) 22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block This cross-wiki spammer was locked and therefore unblocking will have no effect whatsoever. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the account is globally blocked so it will be editing no more. But I applaud admins who bring contested decision to WP:AN for review, kudos. LizRead!Talk! 07:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly heads up that I have raised an MFD on this page as it is a complete mess and embarrassment. I’d suggest that we encourage wide participation in a discussion as to whether the page is ready for use or if a structured RFC on scope and function should be agreed before implementation. SpartazHumbug! 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I've changed your slink to a direct link so that it always points to the proper place. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've performed a closure that has afterwards correctly been criticized as involved. I had supported the creation of the page after opposing it and being convinced by others (WP:RFA2021/P#Passed:_6C_Administrative_action_review).
I have pointed this out in the closure now, which has fortunately since been endorsed by Wbm1058 who didn't participate in the discussion about 6C.
Wbm1058 just pointed out on my talk page that they aren't entirely uninvolved either, as they have commented in the "Discussion 6C" section as well. Okay then, two involved closers… It makes no sense to uphold this. The discussion is open again and should probably be re-closed by someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
since you are involved and clearly don’t care for opinions you disagree with maybe we can just accept your recommendation after blowing off a request to reopen when you knew you were involved is just noise. SpartazHumbug! 21:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz: what part of this don't you understand? Do you have a good reason for this case to be an exception to the applicable WP:MFD guideline? wbm1058 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policies, guidelines and process pages
Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
This is not a policy and was introduced and made live without the actual development called for in the RFC. It clearly has no standing without the necessary discussion agreeing scope function and format. And the way the proponents of this steaming pile of crap are attempting to shut down discussion of this is deeply disappointing for an effort supposed to improve accountability. SpartazHumbug! 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's not a policy but surely it should be characterized as a 'process page'? So the discussion should be about temporarily or permanently halting the process, not deleting the process page. wbm1058 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A process page without an agreed structure or scope is no process. Blanking to allow that discussion was precisely my request. Clearly many editors agree with my approach. MFD has been used for this kind of meta discussion many times over the years and is a perfectly valid venue for the discussion. SpartazHumbug! 22:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A roller coaster of a ride, to be sure: MFD opened → MFD closed → Closure challenged → MFD re-opened. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that one's on me. Possible continuation: MFD opened → MFD closed → Closure challenged → MFD re-opened → MFD closed → Closure challenged → Closure endorsed → RfC opened, arguments repeated. Looking at this, we should probably just keep the MfD running regardless whether the page was originally intended for this purpose. The discussion exists and is advertised at WP:CENT; it doesn't have to be closed after a week either. Keeping it open for a month might alleviate many concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who would have guessed that a page titled "Miscellany for deletion" would be the perfect discussion venue for a matter where deletion wasn't even an option on the table. Despite having been around for a decade now, I was unaware that this kind of discussion apparently routinely happens on this page. Does MfD routinely send participants on roller-coaster rides? Learn something every day. wbm1058 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second close is also incorrect; MFD does not say what the close says it does. But the board appears to be morphing back to a kind of proposal stage, which MFD does say is not applicable. Since a proposal stage is where it should have stayed all along, at the end of the day we're at the right place - undeleted proposal - even if the route we took to get there was messed up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tech question about edits that make no visual difference.
Maybe policy has changed, but I thought it was against policy to use automated tools, etc to edit an article in a way that does nothing to how the article looks. Changing dash types, ok, but just to remove white space at the end of a sentence? I ask because I checked WP:BLUDGEON (an essay I started and continue to watch) and found this edit [39] and saw he only removed two end of line spaces. I saw that he is using Wikipedia:AutoEd so I go to that page, and there is absolutely nothing about using the tool for edits that make no visual difference. AWB makes it clear you shouldn't do those kinds of edits. Am I missing something? I didn't notify because I'm not asking for sanctions, just clarity on this issue. Being an admin, I kind of need to understand our policy on this. I'm thinking I'm right about the spaces, and AutoEd needs to put up notices about usage, but I'm not totally sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, but I am sure I see removal of spaces and replacement of non-Latin characters by analogous Latin characters on my watchlist on a regular basis for already many years.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Characters is not as big a deal, as they may render differently on different computers / languages / charsets. My concern is about things that universally make no difference in the visual on any platform. That, and making sure that automatic tool makers are aware of, and warn for, this thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty common, I'd say. I learned to type by putting two spaces at the end of each sentence, and every so often somebody will go through and remove all of the second spaces from an article I've worked on. Hog FarmTalk 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are pointless. I've boldly edited the bot policy to say that they're not allowed on large scales. Feel free to revert. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Warning left for edits that "consist only of changing whitespace"; I don't really care about the other ones. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is strong in this one[40]. Fram (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You always find the best diffs. Levivich 04:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say, some whitespace edits do have an impact that is not necessarily visible. Its an accessibility issue - although I am only familiar with the past implementations, you probably want to grab a visually impaired editor who regularly uses screen-readers to verify the current status, but I believe that particular one falls into this area. So while yes, quite a lot of whitespace fiddling is pointless, sometimes its not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a line in the lede at Wikipedia:AutoEd that explains this. I appreciate the participation, as I like to get clarity on things I don't deal with regularly. I think we're done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just closed the above thread surrounding a complaint of misuse of rollback by an administrator. I think my rationale is in line with the emerging talk page consensus to remove links to the page from other noticeboards as not being ready to be live, and with how we've typically handled such things in the past. Since I was in opposition to the creation of XRV and am still a skeptic, I'm posting here for review, but I believe that closing off that thread now was in line with our normally accepted practices and on the whole benefited the project. For the record, I'm not involved with the case itself, but since this is all so new and I suspect someone will object, taking here for review seems ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand you wanting a second opinion as, as far as I know, there aren't any guidelines on how this board is to be used, how discussions are to be closed or by whom. If I'm wrong, please point me to where this was all decided (not discussed but decided). I mean, for example, can non-admins close reviews of admin actions? It just seemed like the board appeared after a discussion but prior to any policy consensus on how business there is to be conducted. I mean, considering admin and advanced permissions actions are under review, it seems to be something along the lines of WP:AN but, I don't know, more specific about a particular action that was taken instead of a focus on a pattern of conduct? 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I didn't scroll up and see the other discussion on this review board. I guess I'm not the only one ambivalent about how it was introduced. Now, back to Tony's original question. LizRead!Talk! 07:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close As the close notes, a temporary rollback-usage problem where the editor has issued an apology does not warrant an ongoing investigation. If there are any special rules for WP:XRV, they don't apply unless a specific RfC supports the rules—an RfC on a dedicated page that does not include 26 unrelated proposals. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - the thread under discussion relates to a one-off questionable use of rollback, debated over 36 hours and ending with the editor in question apologising for the incident and committing to do better in future. The new noticeboard has a rule of 7 days before closing, but this issue really doesn't need another 5 and a half days of conversation.
Unrelatedly, I respect the consensus of the RfC to create this additional noticeboard but agree that it needs to define a clearer purpose to avoid duplicating ANI and/or simple usertalk. Something for discussion on the noticeboard's talkpage perhaps. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also don't see why threads there can only be closed by admins. If a close is based on determining consensus and doesn't need admin tools to implement, surely that close can be done by any experienced uninvolved editor as is the case on multiple other noticeboards. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the user who opened the WP:XRV close under review. I had a demotivating experience when I tried to convert Yat Siu from a redirect back to an article. The article's full history is here from Herostratus (talk·contribs).
I thank David Gerard for his apology for the rollback. I appreciate that. I thank TonyBallioni (talk·contribs) for closing the XRV discussion as I agree that closing it benefits the project. It now is clear that it was better to have raised this at WP:ANI instead of WP:XRV as XRV was not ready to go live yet.
@Cunard, Johnuniq, and Euryalus:John Cline raised this on my talk page as well, hinting at the idea that I was involved because I was a skeptic, which is part of the reason I took it here since I'm aware of the optics of a skeptic making a close when something is first opening up. I have a very long reply here, which I won't repeat, but the short of it if anyone else wants a tl;dr is that my understanding is that expressing opinions on how a board should work does not make on involved in regards to specific closures, especially if there is a rough consensus on things on the talk page discussions. I think an other stance would risk a Wikipedia:Fait accompli type situation, but like I said, I'm very open to the community telling me I'm wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We would say you were wrong, but you're not. WP:XRV might be the best thing ever, but it needs to be set up in a dedicated RfC and procedures such as "must stay open for seven days so passers-by can needle anyone in the stocks, no matter how silly the case" can be fully aired. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would be involved if you were a party to the specific dispute about this use of rollback. You are not "involved" simply because you commented on how the noticeboard should be structured. Worth adding that I wasn't a skeptic about XRV when it was proposed, but have become one in watching it over the last few days. This thread is a good example of why. I wish the new XRV "regulars" all the best with setting this up, but for now I've unwatched the page. -- -- Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can hardly imagine a worse outcome than to know the discussion Euryalus linked above gave them cause to stop watching the XRV page, especially considering that I offered a comment in the said discussion. I would sooner have redacted every comment I'd ever published there and taken a wiki-break for as long as necessary to avoid having fostered such an offense that could lead to such a sorrowful end. FWIW, that particular thread is no more than a thought provoking exercise with nothing else proposed or endeavored. If it was a proposal, I'd have been somewhere in the long line of snow-close opposition. And I hope you will reconsider and resume the lend of your eyes for the entire process is better with your watchful presence, and considerably diminished when without instead. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WRT the closure under review, I do not endorse the closure and recommend that the discussion be re-closed by another uninvolved administrator. While not suggesting the closer acted in deliberate disregard while being directly involved (regarding the discussion he'd set out to close) he had become too closely involved in related talk page discussions to even realize that conflicting interests had affected his ability to properly asses and close the very discussion now under review. To illustrate, just as TB states upon self-requesting this review: "... I think my rationale is in line with the emerging talk page consensus ...", his close summary begins similarly, by saying: "Bold/IAR close per the emerging consensus on the talk page ...". When, if ever, is the formal closure of a discussion (requiring closure by an uninvolved admin) closed per the emerging consensus (which never did emerged and, quite arguably, never was in an actual state of emergence) on the talk page, while practically ignoring the consensus (emerging or otherwise) in the very discussion they, ostensibly, were obliged to formally close? I suggest that such a misstep could only occur when rational judgement was in a state of serious compromise. And TB's was in fact so, by vertue of his involvement in and strong affiliation with the side of that talk page discussion that he monitored and commented in. I'm not going to enumerate things further because I have a life too, and anyone serious about establishing the property of this closure can see it easily enough by simply having a look, anyone not serious isn't going to look or give a damn no matter how hard I try. Quite literally, the only thing said in summary that actually was in the discussion supposedly being closed were the things Euryalus rightly said about closing the discussion early (not to imply there was nothing within the discussion to summarize and no actual outcome to mention, which there were and was matters worthy of each (not said) every other point made in the summary were either related to forces external of the discussion, from more mention of the talk page discussion, through how he felt about the page title and his interpretation of what an administrative action is, all the way to posting a final link and instruction directing people away from XRV when if there ever was anything even closely resembling a talk page consensus, it was about removing links from high visibility places that directed people to XRV, never even once was it suggested that people coming in of their own volition being directed away. There's a lot more I could say about policy violations and other mishandling of accepted best practice but I'm out of time and done with this. I know without any doubt that if TB hadn't held such a conflict within his closure would have been on queue and beyond reproach. To his credit, I admire his fortitude to bring it here for review. Thank you and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose as a bad close based on a bad invocation of IAR. Per WP:CLOSE, the closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented. Knowing this, the closer invoked IAR to enable himself not to make a relevant determination regarding consensus and outcome, but instead to close based on his personal view about the status of the process page. The closer is entitled to express such views in any number of ways, it is just that closing is not one of those ways, because closing is not about the closer's opinion, but about determining consensus. So why did TB subvert the role of a closer in order to advertise his opposition to the process instead of commenting somewhere relevant? Obviously this was done to take away the opportunity for the discussion to get a proper close, where consensus is determined. That means that the discussion was rendered pointless and that the venue isn't functioning. Talk was cited, but it wasn't agreed upon beforehand that the venue isn't functioning—such an idea has been discussed, but hasn't garnered consensus. This is true even if the mentions on the noticeboards are removed (logically, doing so or not does nothing to render the venue inoperative). In fact the venue had been, and is, operative (proof). So TB stated his opposition to the process and immediately acted on it to make the venue appear as not functioning. The closer's choice to invoke IAR, and to file this for review at AN immediately afterward, shows that he was aware that an anomaly is about to happen. The community held an centrally advertised RfC in which an idea was accepted that the project would benefit from XRV. It was established in a subsequent MfD that there is a sufficient correspondence between the XRV process stipulated in the RfC and the existing XRV page (i.e. that the page is not "illegitimate", but that is an actual process page). TB could close any XRV discussion like that with the same IAR argument for an indeterminate future period. Shutting these discussions down through such clearly inappropriate closes is against the wider community's idea for how Wikipedia would be improved (per RfC), and so it was not justified to invoke IAR in this case as it was done contrarily to that idea, and it can reasonably be presumed not to have improved Wikipedia. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I don't see what would be gained from further discussion. An apology has been issued, there does not seem to be a community desire for punishment. This whole thing could have been resolved on a user talk page really. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask. 00:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled that someone who disapproves of XRV has speedily closed a thread, I must say. It might be the right decision but it's not a good look. At the time of closure we had already reached consensus that these discussions should last seven days, and the reason for that is to enable people to reflect and consider before they say something. At AN, where threads can be closed at any time, it's a rush to speak your piece before someone hats it up, which is great for those who're on wiki 24/7, but not so great for others. I wouldn't advocate un-closing it now but I'd ask TB not to do that again.—S MarshallT/C 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - In a forum with no established format, rules, scope, or anything else except authority, it was a close over a fairly trivial matter that probably is out of scope anyway (it is in not "administrative" to use rollback), AND where the problem was already solved, the closing makes sense. It's already a cluster-mess over there, dragging it here really isn't helping. Allowed, but not particularly helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question about masked IP identities
Nothing to do here now, masking isn't active yet and this was a case of an editor just using an unusual section header title. — xaosfluxTalk 18:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today I saw one of those "IP address-protected edit requests". According the notice I got, as an admin I am supposed to be able to see those actual IP addresses if I have a need. I wanted to test the system on that edit, but could not find any way to access the information. If I need to see that person’s actual IP, how do I access it? The notice I got at my talk page did not explain how this process will work. I'm asking here, rather than at VP or a technical board, because I think we all need this information - including non-techies like me who usually can't understand WMF's jargon. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: can you point the logentry or diff you are referring to please? — xaosfluxTalk 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN To my knowledge, this hasn't rolled out yet. The long and the short of it is - at some point in the future, instead of being able to see IP addresses (e.g. "192.168.0.1"), you will see some other identifier (such as "Anon111" or something - WMF doesn't seem sure how it will work yet). My understanding is that there may be a group that might be able to see some part, or maybe even whole of the IP for those non-logged in users. I believe that being able to see the IP's of logged-in users will never be visible to people without the checkuser right. There is more detail at meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation for anyone interested. SQLQuery Me! 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my expectation as well - I'm assuming right now that some IP user just didn't sign a post. — xaosfluxTalk 17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that not only has this not rolled out yet, the reason we don't have a good explanation for how it will work is that this is not decided, and that this is just for unregistered users. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: see Special:Diff/1064129626 - that edit and the resulting text is not related to the future masking initiative, just someone being unusual. — xaosfluxTalk 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check the link I provided. It is a talk page entry on a protected page, and it is headed "IP address -protected edit request on 6 January 2022". Where did that heading come from? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, it came from the Diff I just linked to above and was crated by that user. I suppose it is possible some sort of partial block (maybe against the article namesapce) may have helped that user end up with that section header, but as far as an edit goes it is just a normal edit by a normal user. — xaosfluxTalk 18:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think, based on the text of the request, they were saying that it was protected from IP address edits, and that it shouldn't be so he could vandalize something to Donald Duck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is extended confirmed protected, and that account doesn't have enough edits to make changes. They probably hit the 'submit an edit request' button that comes up in that circumstance and typed part of their request in the Subject: prompt. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section break was made by a secret restricted ip address
^--- header names are completely arbitrary free-form text. — xaosfluxTalk 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they are generated by the "click here if you want to comment on the talk page" "submit an edit request" button that new users see, in which case the system generates a header name "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2021". So that's what I thought this was. If this was just someone messing with our heads, they must be pretty experienced with how Wikipedia works. OK, so anyhow, the answer to my question is that they haven't actually implemented the system yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration motion regarding Scientology
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Scientology as follows:
Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.
For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OP indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles on South Africa have a massive problem with neo-nazi/white nationalist rhetoric. I think this has been overlooked. I tried to be thorough with examples of why WP:NONAZIS applies here. These are a few main articles I have found but I am sure there are more. They tend to use WP:WEASEL words to avoid being overtly racist.
Orania, Northern Cape - Very sympathetic to the creation of a white's only ethnostate. Edited the intro but the entire article is very strangely detailed for a town of 1,000 people or so. Reads like an advertisement.
Volkstaat - The idea of a white Afrikaner ethno state. Worded very sympathetically. Perhaps the most openly racist of the articles linked. It provides important context for other topics of interest to white nationalists.
Afriforum article also downplays the white nationalist nature of the group. (Added after posting) Desertambition (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for admins to do a more thorough investigation into this issue and the users involved. I did not create a detailed post about users because I just didn't have it in me to do that kind of research right now but I think you will find a lot of the same names popping up on these articles.
WP:NONAZIS
Most relevant beliefs of nazis:
That the various cultures of white people are better than the cultures of non-white people.
That white people have the right to live in a white-only nation.
That a large majority of crimes are committed by non-whites.
That violent, abhorrent or deceptive actions are justified in the pursuit of these beliefs.
...much of what is written here can be applied to racists of various non-white (or non-Nazi) flavors, as well. All one must do is swap out "white people" and "non-whites" for the races in question, and if the shoe fits, their behavior is no more excusable than that of any Neo-Nazi or Klansman.
In addition, there are many more beliefs that are quite common, though not universal among these groups. These include:
That white people are being systemically killed, out-bred and otherwise forced into a minority status.
"Among rural Afrikaners, violent crime committed against the white farming community has contributed significantly to a hardening of attitudes. Between 1998 and 2001 there were some 3,500 recorded farm attacks in South Africa, resulting in the murder of 541 farmers, their families or their workers, during only three years. On average more than two farm attack related murders are committed every week." - Volkstaat article
That minority groups are seeking to destroy Western culture.
Endangered cultural heritage
In 2002 a number of towns and cities with historic Afrikaans names dating back to Voortrekker times—such as Pietersburg and Potgietersrus—had their names changed, often in the face of popular opposition to the change.[5] In the same year the government decided that state departments had to choose a single language for inter- and intra-departmental communication, effectively compelling public servants to communicate using English with one another.
Of the 31 universities in South Africa, five were historically Afrikaans (Free State, Potchefstroom, Pretoria, Rand Afrikaans University and Stellenbosch). In mid-2002 the national Minister of Education, Kader Asmal, announced that Afrikaans medium universities must implement parallel teaching in English, despite a proposal by a government appointed commission that two Afrikaans universities should be retained to further Afrikaans as an academic language. According to the government's language policy for higher education "the notion of Afrikaans universities runs counter to the end goal of a transformed higher education system". - Volkstaat article.
That the groups persecuted by the Nazis Afrikaners brought it upon themselves, and that the Nazis Afrikaners merely acted in self-defence.
There is constant talk of the South African government being undemocratic and incompetent. The focus on crime adds to the message that Afrikaners are being persecuted and must form their own ethnostate. Most sources support an understanding that South Africa is a fully functioning, if flawed, democracy.
There is a major focus on crime in these articles.
Crime has remained a major problem in South Africa since the end of Apartheid. According to a survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the United Nations, South Africa was ranked second for assault and murder (by all means) per capita.[15] Total crime per capita is 10th out of the 60 countries in the data set. Crime has had a pronounced effect on society: many wealthier South Africans moved into gated communities, abandoning the central business districts of some cities for the relative security of suburbs. - Volkstaat article
In contrast to the rest of South Africa, Orania's residents perceive it as being crime free, where their children can grow up safe. Orania has neither a police force nor a prison. Traffic monitoring and minor crimes such as petty theft are handled internally. Volunteers carry out neighbourhood watch patrols. In October 2014 Orania Veiligheid (Orania Security) was established, to handle reports of illegal activities such as theft, but also more trivial matters such as littering and noise complaints. Apprehended suspects are taken to the police station in neighbouring Hopetown. Police are only called in as a last resort. Residents are exhorted to use mediation and arbitration procedures made available by the town council, rather than resorting to South African courts. - Orania, Northern Cape article
Also farm attacks mentioned every five seconds is a very obvious dogwhistle.
That white people are more oppressed than other groups.
That groups of people should be wiped off the face of the planet, or systematically repatriated to the lands or continents they supposedly originated from.
The idea that white Afrikaners and other Africans should be separated into their own ethnostates is a recurring theme.
That the concept of free speech entails freedom to post race-, gender-, or identity-based slurs, insults, or promotion and glorification of hate and violence, without any consequence whatsoever, and that any consequence brought upon them is an act of censorship.
This shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia and I think admins should do a more thorough investigation into these articles.
Just for reference, I found these episodes from a South African white nationalist podcast. You may notice that the supporters tend to be exactly Wikipedia's main demographic.
News reports on growing white nationalism in South Africa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAZhDHDjP3I - White South Africans inspired by Trump, US alt-right Video does a fantastic job detailing how Afrikaners craft victim narratives online through conspiracy theories and myths.
Admins don't have any particular authority over the content of articles: we mainly deal with editor conduct and perform boring admin tasks. If the articles don't meet WP:NPOV, you can simply edit them to correct this. I've been working on articles on the enforcers of the Apartheid regime recently, and the quality of them seems generally OK (e.g. they're very too the point about the nature and deeds of these people), so I'm not sure there's a systematic problem. If there are identifiable editors still pushing nonsense into articles, that could be a report, but this is a fishing expedition that is beyond the scope of admins roles to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit I find that response pretty frustrating. What else do I need to prove? They're never going to come out and start saying the n word. This seems like a pretty big issue to me. I don't want to get involved with more endless edit wars. I am saying that these articles are being crafted a certain way and then ferociously defended. Just look at List of renamed places in South Africa. After I added info about Orania, Northern Cape being widely considered racist it was soon removed without explanation. This happens constantly with these topics. Surely neo-nazi propaganda is at least somewhat problematic on Wikipedia. I cited articles and excerpts from those articles. It feels like this topic is not being taken seriously by admins, I hope you can understand my frustration. Desertambition (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking admins to go on a fishing expedition. Maybe someone will take this up but, to be really frank, this is not a good report. We deal in problematic conduct by identifiable and still-active editors, especially when normal editing and dispute resolutions have demonstrably not been working. If you could post another report identifying editors who are actively pushing falsehoods with diffs to support this and evidence that usual editing practices haven't been effective, it would be actionable. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to undertake a massive amount of work. This is endlessly frustrating. It's upsetting that openly white nationalist articles are not actionable. I'll start to work on it but knowing that admins won't even look into allegations of neo-nazi propaganda because the report isn't complete shows why we have such a systemic WP:BIAS problem. I understand the report isn't complete and I'm salty but I hope you understand my intense frustration. Desertambition (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertambition: You can not just come and accuse users you disagree with in neo-Nazi propaganda. We on Wikipedia do not take this accusations lightly. This is not the first time you make them. But this is definitely the last time, because if this is not I will block you account next time you accuse anyone on Wikipedia in Neo-Nazi propaganda. Refusing to move the article on Port-Elisabeth has nothing to do with Nazism, and if you are not capable of understanding this you should not be editing Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: How is advocating for a white ethnostate not nazi stuff? Didn't say that just refusing to move Port Elizabeth is Nazism and it's disingenuous to imply I did. Desertambition (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the user indef as I promised. I understand that this action may be contested, and I will now open a XRV thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Desertambition, why do you think this, in your original post, is appropriate: That the groups persecuted by the Nazis Afrikaners brought it upon themselves, and that the Nazis Afrikaners merely acted in self-defence.? Are you trying to say that Nazi and Afrikaner is interchangeable? DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Ymblanter and DeCausa write above. To be perfectly honest, the main problem I see in this thread is Desertambition's own behavior. I fully support WP:NONAZIS but vague accusations of neo-Nazi propaganda without any firm support are not very helpful. Equating Afrikaners with Nazis violate a number of policies and is completely unacceptable. Also, many of the examples given are so far from "neo-nazism" as to lend support to Ymblabter's suggestion that Desertambition should perhaps not edit if they equate users not being in favor of moving Port Elisabeth with being neo-Nazis. Jeppiz (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having articles about topics is not the same thing as advocating for them. Most of your posts above seem to stem from the failure to understand this distinction. Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The audacity of complaining about racism and then comparing an ethnic group to Nazis. — Czello 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertambition:, can you answer my question above please? If your intention is to equate an entire ethnicity, the Afrikaners, with Nazis then you should be sanctioned. Is that what you were doing? If it was, is it something you regret and are intending to retract/delete? DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter has already blocked Desertambition, so the only place they will be able to answer is on their own talk page. Nthep (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they answered after the last time I asked them here. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Spam-only accounts
I was patrolling AIV, and today there were about ten accounts which we brought there as spam-only. Most of them were easy to handle: If the only edit is creation of a user page with spam links or spam phone numbers I delete the page and block indef; if they managed to do several suck edits it is even easier. But there were two where I had some doubts, MAM AND AMS and Ashtontorbert. They both have made one edit creating their user pages, and the pages are clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia, but it this enough in these cases to block a user who made one edit as spam-only account? These are not spam bots, one promotes himself, another one promotes some food but without links. Whar are our best practices for spam-only accounts beyond obvious spambots?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ashtontorbert is a kid, not a professional spammer. As for spammers, I'm more about people dumping links to their new blog/site/whatever. Not so much about a kid spinning a yarn about how he's going to be big and famous this year on the interwebs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of COIN thread by involved editor
Hi! AlexEng recently closed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006. I agree with some of the point raised in the close, such as the thread being inordinately long. However, the closure was made by an involved editor, and I also don't believe that it provides a guide for editors to resolve the issues raised within the thread in a constructive manner. I believe that two editors (Levivich and Sgerbic) on opposite sides of the discussion were slowly getting to a constructive common ground, or at least better understanding, and there were some good ideas (the creating of a new WikiProject) that merit further discussion. I believe that either an uninvolved editor should close the thread and provide some guidance on where to continue constructive discussion or the thread should be allowed to reopen for a few days in order to move towards this more constructive resolution that I believe is possible. Additionally, I believe the closure should've mentioned that functionaries had testified that editors in the dispute had been editing in areas where they have an undisclosed COI, as that is an important conclusion of the thread. Cheers. Santacruz⁂Please ping me! 11:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly approve of any review of my close, and I am happy to apologize and self-revert if there is even rough consensus that I was wrong. A. C. Santacruz should get no flack for bringing this here, because I invited her to. For visibility, there is some additional discussion on this closure at WP:COIN#Closure, which I expect may get merged at some point. First, I want to articulate that I closed the discussion as a good faith attempt to stop ongoing disruption and incivility as well as to bring a colossal and dense discussion that had grown stale and circular to a constructive end. I did this knowing that closure by involved editors is unusual and rare but not strictly against policy per se. This is a discussion that 1) sucked up a ton of time and effort from the community[a], affecting other discussions at COIN; 2) had grown extremely long and dense, featuring a lot of back-and-forth in massive threads; 3) would require, for a fair close, a contextual understanding of both the discussion itself and the veritable tree of branching disputes stemming from the equally massive and dense ANI thread concerning GSoW; and 4) had grown stale, with new editors coming in on rarer and rarer occasions and with no fresh takes on the situation or new commentary. I weighed the options, and I thought it would be a net positive to close the discussion after 22 days and 35,000+ words, excluding links, videos, articles and diffs used as evidence. At this point, both the originator of the discussion and one of the two main editors in focus had withdrawn from the discussion; the former, assumedly, after 32 hours of no reply after having made increasingly brief additions in the previous few edits, and the latter by pointed assertion. ⏎
Given my somewhat involved role in the discussion and to try and avoid as much of a perception of impropriety as possible, I took pains to formulate a close in as neutral a way as possible. I was hoping to amend it based on feedback, which I explicitly invited in my close summary, on a point-by-point basis if there is anywhere that I erred in my attempt to faithfully summarize the discussion. Closure review is another viable option, and I would welcome the extra eyes. I would also welcome a re-close by an uninvolved editor who is willing to wade through the discussion. And, as I said earlier, I am happy to self-revert and apologize if the community feels that the close was inappropriate in any way. My agreement is not required, in any case. Thanks, everyone. I will be back when I wake up. AlexEng(TALK) 12:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, two more quick things to add before bed. First, not that anyone needs me to remind them, but I think this thread on this board is supposed to be focused on the close itself rather than an additional forum to discuss the topic; correct me if I'm wrong. Second, if it's a WP:SNOW situation, any editor in good standing has my direct permission to revert/re-close before I wake up. You don't need to wait for fruitless rebuttals or anything. Thanks! AlexEng(TALK) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^"Nevertheless, while I have been somewhat active on this board for nearly three years, I feel a bit uneasy being the only one truly uninvolved responding to this. A far-reaching case above has grabbed most of the attention and I feel a little alone which is why I asked for patience." - SVTCobra
Endorse close. (non-admin view) I can't believe anybody believes it would help Wikipedia to resume that meandering megathread. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a painfully careful close and AlexEng deserves praise for being brave enough to end that WP:TRAINWRECK. In this case, following WP:INVOLVED would certainly have prevented them ...from improving or maintaining Wikipedia... and they were fully justified in ignoring it. Kudos to Alex. That said, it was opaque in the extreme what the original thread sought to achieve and it is even less clear what overturning it and subjecting everyone to even more useless debate would do. There is zero rational reason to re-examine the close. Seeking to overturn such an extraordinarily well-reasoned close takes on the appearance of pursuing a personal vendetta rather than trying to improve the project at this point. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:Must Rp2006 disclose any COI relationship they have with an edit, if that edit is a revert? is "opaque in the extreme"? Huh? Levivich 16:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Levivich that the only issue with the close is after wading through all the material, AlexEng appears to have forgotten to address the original question and someone should amend the close to include the community consensus on whether Rp2006 has to disclose their COI including reverts. Rest of the close is a great summary of the larger issuesSlywriter (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides what Levivich brought up, I'm also uncomfortable that the close was by someone whose involvement was very much non-neutral. I feel this raises legitimate questions over the purpose of the close itself, which even if in good faith (as I think it mostly is), can easily be interpreted as biased toward one party. I had considered closing, or at least commenting with my distillation of the discussion, before deciding my having commented in a couple prior threads with mild criticism of one aspect of GSOW's approach would make doing so unfair. JoelleJay (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there an option to not reopen the thread, but instead have an uninvolved admin add a close summary? Because I agree the thread needed to be closed, not least (actually, maybe this is the least important reason...) because the "subscribe" function was no longer able to highlight all new comments which made it very difficult to track what was going on. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly looking over that discussion, it belongs at ARBCOM as it's clear the community can't deal with it. No opinion on the specific close, but I agree it needed to be closed with no outcome. And, if anyone still thinks there is an issue (and I very much imagine they do) they should open a case at ARBCOM. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your perspective that the issue belongs at ARBCOM, seeing as it seems from my understanding most people agree that the thread is a shitstorm, all other threads on the issue have been a shitstorm, and as we have been unable to find a constructive way forward (on what should've been quite a straight-forward COIN thread) it is very likely this topic will be a shitstorm repeatedly in the future and therefore be detrimental to the wiki. I originally opposed the close partially on my belief that a constructive resolution through community discussion could be found. Many more experienced editors than myself do not believe so, so ARBCOM is probably the best way forward. Santacruz⁂Please ping me! 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, and the only thing I know about you is that your signature is distinctive and makes it easy to see how often it appears in a conversation and that you have a current ANI partial block for CIR issues, maybe step away from this now. nableezy - 23:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Id re-close it, but the last time that happened several unfortunate things transpired. But happy to help if nobody objects. nableezy - 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Endorse - As someone who has read the complete discussion including how AlexEng mostly participated as an effort to be able to finally close it, then having read the closure message, it all seems fine to me. Although AN is the right place to review a closure, I have the impression that this is the continuation of recent FORUMSHOPPING. —PaleoNeonate – 02:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) It's concerning to me that a discussion of this magnitude would be closed by an involved, non-neutral editor (though it was a very thorough review and close). Some editors seem a little too anxious to sweep the concerns under the rug, say it's all just a big mess, and move on while the issues still hang in the air. The close offers no indication of what potential next steps could be. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Though most of the closure is OK, as a participant in that discussion I do share the concerns that some have raised here; that AlexEng was an inappropriate closer due to being involved in the discussion. Even if AlexEng's close is endorsed by those here, I would like to see it modified to address the original purpose of the thread; Rp2006' COI. Given that a functionary (GeneralNotability) received credible evidence privately indicating Rp2006 has been making COI edits, that needs to be addressed in the closure. Even if the recommendation from the closure is to escalate to arbcom. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) - Fully agree with Sideswipe9th BilledMammal (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I'm at as well. A functionary said there was undisclosed coi editing, and lying about it. I provided diffs of the editor using the source they have a COI with to add negative information to a BLP over the course of years. Seems odd that it wasn't mentioned in the close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) It's worth quoting GeneralNotability's comment: Speaking with my funct hat on, I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise. Obviously close-worthy. JBchrchtalk 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an ArbCom request has been filed, which makes most of the discussion here redundant. I would suggest to close this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Until Arb accepts, this is still a valid thread. If they decline, closing this beforehand would be a problem. I suggest waiting until it is obvious they will accept. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are three outcomes possible here.
Nothing, and it gets closed or archived eventually.
The close is overturned, the thread at coin is reopened, and it sits around until it's closed by someone else, or is archived, since anything that should be said at this point would be at arbcom.
Someone else takes the close as their own, and appends the closing statement. That doesn't need this thread open to happen.
As far as process goes, yeah, this should remain open, but it can really only increase drama. Also, I bet you 10 edits to the article of my choice that it gets accepted. It's exactly what arbcom is for.
I'm tempted to close this discussion myself so that we can have Closure of Closure of COIN thread by involved editor by an involved editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine if I closed it? AlexEng(TALK) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It only causes drama if people keeping posting nonsensical tangential comments instead of waiting to see what Arb does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think the levity helps, rather than ratchets up drama. At least there's no aspersions, personal attacks or arguments. Instead we get chuckles (hopefully), cringes and face palms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In particular, the late 1980s unit listing that I have just removed from the 51 Brigade article was a synthesis and interpretation based among other sources on the 1991 Master Order of Battle - which was issued *after* the date of the claimed unit listing.
I was advised after the last post at WP:AN that I could seek a WP:CR - closure request, for a site topic ban for Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 for any military topics after 1850.
In accordance with the last parts of the archived Archive 334 proposal for a topic ban, and continuing concerns about this user's adherence to referencing, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and other CIR issues I would like to propose/request a sitewide topic ban for Coldstreamer20 ex J-Man11 from any military topics after 1850. Such a restriction would allow this user to gain more experience at building and referencing articles properly using secondary sources only. Buckshot06(talk) 11:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN from all Milhist articles Coldstreamer20/J-Man11's long-standing propensity to use online sources leads them into this quandary. Instead of slowing down and borrowing books from libraries to properly source the articles they work on from reliable secondary sources, they work very fast and seek the most accessible sources of information, despite some of them being unreliable SPS. The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a Ministry of Defence printout using military abbreviations and multi-alphanumeric codes obtained via FOI, and even someone like me that actually served with the British Army around that time has to interpret what it says using my existing knowledge. The requirement for the use of PRIMARY sources is that you cannot analyse or interpret the source, and it is clear that Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 is doing that, and inaccurately. It is therefore not an acceptable use of a PRIMARY source. After so many instances of Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 using unreliable online sources for military history articles, I agree with the CIR issue and actually think an indefinite TBAN from all military-related articles is warranted. The clean-up and monitoring work involved is just too much to expect other editors to do, and Buckshot06 has done the bulk of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would a more focused tban that excludes coldstreamer from citing any: 1) Websites, 2) self-published sources, 3) primary sources on milhist related articles work? I'd certainly agree that they do not seem like a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe I do not believe so. The amount of fast sloppy work, not demonstrating any underlying understanding of how forces fitted together, especially for the British Army, after 1900 makes me believe that a topic ban is required. Buckshot06(talk) 05:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coldstreamer20 would benefited from gaining access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library ages ago, based on the accusations levelled here. I am somewhat surprised nobody has pointed them to that. Peacemaker67's repeated insistence on offline sources is mistaken as it's presenting a false dichotomy that the "quick and easy way" is not the right way. It is quick and easy to find actual secondary sources if one has access to online databases and I would highly recommend that regardless of what happens here, Coldstreamer20 should endeavour to gain access to an online research database. It would seem that TWL checks if an editor has an active block and not a "ban" per se unless it's enforced by a block. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new problem, Chess. My "repeated insistence on offline sources", is nothing of the sort. Many books, journal articles, newspapers etc are available online, and I am not suggesting they can't use those, as long as they are reliable. But instead they use SPS fanboi sites that are clearly unreliable. My suggestion about the library is just one way of obtaining access to reliable sources, as is TWL. If Coldstreamer20 does not learn what a reliable source is, they will never be able to utilise online sources in a way that is acceptable on WP. And they have been given plenty of rope already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, The Wikipedia Library does not include the kind of extremely detailed data points (individual company locations, exact command chains etc) that Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 is trying to write about. The information is usually only reliably available from official sources or through specialist publications with years of delay. Instead this user has repeatedly tried to patch together WP:SYNTH listings for 2019, 2020, or even now 2021. This user does not appear to be able to interpret what a reliable source is, and does not appear to have an underlying understanding of how for example the British Army has fitted together since 1945 (eg problems distinguishing United Kingdom Land Forces, 1972-1995, from HQ Land Forces, which only appeared in the 21st century, c2012). This is why I have been forced to make this TB request. I'm tired, very tired, of running around after her/him to clean up. Buckshot06(talk) 09:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a participant in the two previous AN threads. (The second is further down on Archive 334, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11.) Both were unanimous, but not everyone agreed on the precise scope, and the thread went stale and were archived without action. I'll stick with the post-1850 cutoff from the second proposal, unless someone can demonstrate evidence of disruption on a pre-1850 or timeless military topic, or explain why such behavior is likely to occur. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tban from military history articles Seems like IDHT problems. To note, there's probably nothing easy about finding the right sources for these kinds of specialisized subjects. However, if you cannot find reliable sources for a topic, that does not make it acceptable to use unreliable sources. The proper response is to move on and edit something else. Clearly this user needs official nudging in that direction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN from all Milhist articles I don't understand how a user who claims to have a Master's Degree in History is struggling to properly utilize reliable sources after repeated warnings from others.--Catlemur (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Topic Ban Appeal
I'd like to submit a formal request to the administrators and the community for the lifting of sanctions imposed on me relating to a TBAN on a subject matter concerning "Erica Nlewedim". The TBAN was implemented on 30 June 2021 as a result of my inability to edit around the subject neutrally because I'm a big fan of hers. Since then, I have refrained from editing articles covering this subject and also refrained from resubmitting the draft at AfC.
I have been contributing actively at AFC and AFD especially in the Nigerian space because that’s an area I understand. I have also been doing article creation, deorphaning articles and welcoming new users. I have not had any warnings or come under fire for any untoward behaviour. I have earned barnstars for my AfC work and contentwork. The editor who caused me stress apologized for being overly critical of my work and praised me for my ability to edit in a collaborative manner.
Also, I would like to emphasise that I understand the rationale behind the TBAN and have no interest in resubmitting the draft at AfC any further. I just want to be able to edit without being worried about sanctions. Thank you. Princess of Ara 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always for lifting tbans if possible. Would you be willing to adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on all things related to Erica Nlewedim for a period of 12 months if the tban was lifted? It would automatically expire, you wouldn't have to ask for it to be lifted. This means that you could edit things related, but you couldn't revert more than once per 24 hour period. The 1RR would only apply to Erica Nlewedim topics and edits, nothing else. I haven't looked at your history yet, but this is common idea I like to throw out early. Since it has only been 6 months or so since the tban was instituted, a little extra caution on our part is warranted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Dennis Brown, I'll be willing to take the restriction so far it gets my username off the editing restrictions list. Princess of Ara 06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would remain for one year, as 1RR, but automatically be lifted afterwards. But I'm not the only one here, it's just one idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not @Dennis Brown, but believe a 1RR would still have you listed. Can you clarify why exactly you want the restriction removed? Is it just so you're not on a list? StarMississippi 15:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative @Star Mississippi, My username on the list really discourages me so I want my username removed from that list. What led to the ban did not involve edit warring so if the 1RR involves remaining on the list, I'm promising not to get into trouble surrounding that subject. Princess of Ara 15:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion, should the topic ban be lifted but 1RR be implemented, is for you to pretend it the topic ban exists. Don't edit in the area, that way you won't have to worry about sanctions. Courtesy @Celestina007: as they don't appear to have been notified. StarMississippi 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The justification is to prevent diving in too deeply into an area where you've already had enough problems that it warranted a tban. A tban is a more severe thing than a 3rr block, after all. It doesn't limit how much you can add to that topic, but it limits how much you can remove other's work, a much milder restriction than a tban. It is not required to have 3RR violations to get a 1RR restriction in a topic, it is only necessary to demonstrate that there has been a problem with that topic, and the tban indicates such. Since you are asking for the tban to be lifted so soon after it was placed, it is compromise, one I suggest you accept gracefully if a consensus supports it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Anything to get my name off that list. Thank you. Princess of Ara 16:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the lifting of the TBAN. The 1RR restriction seems like a good idea, though I'm not too sure if it needs to be as long as a year. Few months would be enough. — Goldencall me maybe? 15:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting with 1RR restriction of a duration of 0 to 12 months. The restriction isn't a deal breaker, but I think a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lifting of TBAN with 1RR for at most 6 months(or maybe less) since their TBan is already more than 6 months. I believe Princess of Ara have learnt from the past and will never go near the aforementioned draft just like they have abstained before now. Comr Melody Idoghor(talk) 16:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting the TBAN, preferably without the 1RR restriction at all, but with it if that is the only way for this proposal to pass. I am more concerned by the interactions between Princess of Ara and Celestina007. Despite being banned fromasked not to comment at Princess of Ara's talk page, for instance, Celestina007 filed a frivolous ANI report against Princess of Ara a couple of weeks ago, and the report strikes me as extreme rudeness with only a thin veil of politeness. Despite this, Princess of Ara responded politely at ANI, and did not escalate the situation, though I am not a fan of the edit summary "Don't archive hysterics". I'm afraid an interaction ban (IBAN) would be logged as well, possibly causing distress to Princess of Ara, but perhaps we are not yet at the point where it is needed. I would say to Celestina007: here, you have been reminded that civility and NPA apply even to editors you are accusing of UPE. Your behaviour has not been the correct way to act; even if everything you have claimed is true and needs to be recorded, the tone of your reports makes it look like grudge-bearing and hounding. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slight rewording per below. — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus in that ANI discussion was very clear, that the community made it very well known that Celestina007 needed to pull their head in and quickly. I haven't been keeping track of the situation, but if that hasn't happened to an extent that we're happy with, I would absolutely support a wider community discussion around whether further action is required (either now, or in the future if it persists after your direct remarks to Celestina007 above). Daniel (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv and Daniel, just 24 hours after I defended Princess of Ara on this Celestina007's time wasting ANI report. As a revenge, Celestina007 accused me of COI without evidence [42], and she also created this delete discussion that ended in keep. And before the above, she has opened an SPI with me as the suspected socks few days after an AN discussion. Lastly, she also posted this personal attack [43] against me and Princess of Ara. I don't know if all these is right? Comr Melody Idoghor(talk) 04:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support — First off @Bilorv, please correct yourself I wasn’t banned from her TP, she asked me to not post anymore on her TP which I obliged, following the ANI. Furthermore please do not cast aspersions of hounding, because up until that ANI, i initiated a week ago, I hadn’t interacted with them, so where is the hounding? The very ANI you are referencing was closed on 26th of July 2021 (from that moment up until now, i have matured immensely), I’m not without flaws and I am far from perfect but I make conscious efforts and strive to be better, Please do retract your aspersions of me hounding. In-fact see here, where i expressly state that I certainly didn’t handle matters appropriately in the past and that I wanted to mend relationships, although they didn’t reply, I totally know they mean well. Myself and Princess of Ara definitely did disagree on several things but moving forward I am making conscious efforts to handle things better. So yes, I certainly support this, coincidentally i had been trying to reach them in order for them to make this very appeal unfortunately as she asked me not to come to her TP thus I was constantly at an impasse, having to deal with other aspects of the project predominantly NPP & Teahouse hosting, I intended to e-mail them at some point but it seemed like a horrible idea, since they didn’t even want me on their TP. @Daniel, I stated in that very ANI that I’d handle things in the collaborative project with less confrontation which I believe to a good extent I have tried to abide by my own promise, please i support that the TBAN be lifted. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean "ban" in the sense of "community ban", but in the informal sense you described. I've changed my wording accordingly as I can see the confusion. The ANI report is what resembles hounding. I really cannot see why the AFD alone would not suffice as the action to take. However, I happened to see the ANI report within a minute of looking, so if it really is the case that you have not interacted with Princess of Ara since July 2021 other than that report then I may have got a mistaken impression of the scope of the issue. I would still encourage you to take this on as feedback (as you say you did after the July 2021 ANI thread). — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, all is well, thank you for making the adjustment, all is well Bilorv, I never miss, nor take for granted any opportunity to learn as I stated in the ANI in July 2021, i see every mistake I make as an opportunity to learn, i do not take for granted any feedback from a community that has trusted me. It took a number of sysops to tell me to be less confrontational and still carry out my duties when dealing with potential article spamming, of which I have, I haven’t been perfect Bilorv but my goal (which ought to be the goal of us all) is to be better than the person/people we were yesterday. I’m still largely accurate when dealing with possible unethical practices and have nabbed several unethical editing and multiple possible sock rings with next to no confrontation, with the help of Timtrent, Dan ardnt, DGG, and a host of co-editors. To the best of my ability I have abided by the promise I made to myself and the community of approaching possible unethical practices with little to no confrontation. Once again thank you for the adjustment you made. Please I believe Princess of Ara has potential to do good and I honestly would want to work with them moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please I’m currently heavily multi tasking and shuffling between co creating a new article with another editor, new page reviewing and Teahouse duties. Please if there are specific questions directed at me please I would appreciate the {{ping}} function be optimized as I may not be manually checking here for new comments due to how busy I am right now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support conditional removal of topic ban and replacement with 1RR for 12 months We seem to have become distracted with other matters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these it is a shame to dilute this discussion with those other matters. The appellant deserves clarity im their appeal discussions. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a 6-month 1RR restriction - the reasons for removing are fair, and there is some basis for the 1RR, but 12 months seems overly long. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A trusted editor with a demonstrable track record. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i request the page created by User:Hilspress be moved back (with both names correctly capitalised of course) as i had made an objection as per Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections. RZuo (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Liz has this handled more than adequately on her talk page. And quite frankly, considering the resistance she is getting against her good (and accurate) advice, I'm happy to let her. You need to handle it there RZuo, not here, as it looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to come here. She has presented you with options that you have failed to take advantage of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this request is simple and straightforward. Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections says "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." such a page can only be deleted by the consensus of an afd, which means any speedy deletion is inappropriate.
i have asked for the page to be moved back, six months ago and now again, so that any editor (including me) could work on it. it's futile to talk about any potential contribution from me or anyone else, if the page is sloppily mishandled through the "backdoor to deletion".
Wikipedia:Drafts also shows, that deletion (section 2) occurs only after working on the drafts (section 1). here an editor has made clear the original move was controversial as per section 1.5.4, before any deletion should be considered.
The draft is an unsourced BLP and, as such, will not be moved to the main space. If you want, I can restore the draft, you add sources, and then I can move it to the main space.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are: Iduma Igariwey. I still do not understand why you could not have done six month ago what I have done now in five minutes, and instead preferred to complain about just everyone, but, fine, sometimes I am unable to understand why people behave like they behave.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the person is the Pope, BLPs without sources will be deleted or removed from Main space. Drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months will be deleted. Period. You can quote all the policy you want, but those two facts are at the core of our policies and take precedence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
could you please reveal what its target was? (if it points to another redirect, what's the ultimate target?) i suspect its target should be valid content.--RZuo (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Digging through the deleting admin's delete logs suggests it was one of the list articles nominated at this AfD. It closed as soft delete so I believe that you should be able to WP:REFUND the lists should you wish. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was a thing that happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I have been making a consistent effort to open a dialogue about an edit of mine which an admin decided was vandalism.
I am more than open to hearing out their reasoning and accepting their edits, however, rather than open a dialog, the admin is deleting my honest question on their talk page over and over again. I thought admins had some obligation to explain their removals.
For one, any editor can remove a talk page section from their own page (as long as it's not a declined unblock request). Secondly, the edit that you were talking about? I would have removed it as well. (For reference here's the edit in question.) RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you were disputing Bbb23's removal of this edit I don't particularly blame them. I think you should just leave it and edit constructively instead. I see the rest of the page is like this so I retract this. — Czello 14:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moments after you posted this, the admin responded in ample detail on your talk page. I think we can mark this resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: In all fairness, I hadn't responded to the user on their Talk page at the time they posted here. The user was moving too quickly; I was having trouble keeping up. :-) I removed the post to my Talk page with an edit summary saying to keep it on their Talk page. Then they reposted to my Talk page, and I just reverted having already explained once. Then I responded on their Talk page, as you saw.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your attention to this. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp
The Arbitration Committee has declined the case request Warsaw concentration camp and has resolved through several motions that:
This request for arbitration is resolved as follows:
The request for an arbitration case to resolve the issue of a potential conflict of interest as originally posted is declined, as the community has resolved the issue presented.
The request for an arbitration case as subsequently revised to address misconduct in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland is declined at this time, based on the terms of this motion.
Editors are reminded that standard discretionary sanctions and special sourcing restrictions remain in effect for articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland. These provisions are to be interpreted and enforced with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia's coverage of this important and sensitive topic is fairly and accurately presented based on the most reliable sources available, while maintaining a reasonable degree of decorum and collaboration among editors.
Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. The sanctions and restrictions should be interpreted and enforced so as to promote our content-quality and user-conduct expectations. Enforcement discussions should focus on the accuracy of our articles and the well-being of our editors, not on procedural technicalities beyond those necessary to ensure fairness. As an alternative to AE, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary to enforce proper conduct in the topic area.
The community, particularly including any editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area, is urged to carefully review the accuracy and sourcing of our articles on the Holocaust in Poland and related topics, with the goal of identifying and addressing any deficiencies that might exist, and implementing any other improvements that may be possible. Appropriate user-conduct is required during all discussions that are part of any such review.
Editors in good standing who have withdrawn from editing in this topic-area, who are prepared to abide by all the relevant policies and expectations, are invited to return to editing.
Should further alleged misconduct affecting our articles on the Holocaust in Poland take place, or be discovered, a new request for arbitration may be filed. The request for arbitration, and any responses to it, should identify specific instances of misconduct that is affecting the content of or editing environment on these articles. Reasonable extensions of the word limits, where warranted, will be afforded to allow the presentation of relevant and significant evidence. In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue. In the event that an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.
Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.
Jehochman (talk·contribs) is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [44] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [45]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. [46]
MyMoloboaccount (talk·contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors [47]. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland.
Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force.
I am pretty sure the IP belongs to Borden Grammar School, was there a way to tag that? I think a kid is being disruptive right now from there. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've given them another 3-year anonblock. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three years sounds like a long time. I had thought I had seen some school template tags on other IPs before. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were blocked for 3 years in Nov '18, and clearly went right back to it when it expired. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
And yes, we have a number of school-based talk page IP templates, including {{Shared IP edu}}. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can some edit filters be set up to handle the years long disruption at these talk pages, centered around editslikethese? Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't semiprot be appropriate if there is IP vandalism, even on a talk page? Seems more useful than an edit filter only for a pair of talk pages. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that, and was actually about to close this as withdrawn, based on responses I saw at the edit filter request page. I don't think semi is a great idea though, as pages on celebrities do get a fair amount of IP and new user traffic. That said, I just took a quick glance through the talk pages and archives, and I don't think there's been any constructive editing that semi would have stopped, except an instance of letting us know about vandalism. In conclusion, I'd be fine with semi, or just removing the disruptive edit requests as they pop up until the heat death of the universe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swear comments on my talk page
This 2409:4060:2014:13C2:0:0:1D8F:38B0 ip, left some swear comments on my talk page. See this, and this. He has even vandalized past 4 warnings, and I have reported him to WP:AIV. Just though to keep the notice here, as he also harrased me. Thanks. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. You are of course always welcome to remove garbage like that from your own talk page; no need to let it sit there. As a random question, why is your talk page flagging as a dab? Primefac (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is DAB? Can you please tell me properly? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 12:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the my talk page is a disambiguation page. Can anyone solve it? Why should it be a disambiguation page? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 12:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a category that wasn't properly linked, but it looks like it's been sorted now. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected that erroneous attempt to link a category, but I can't see why the user talk page had been believed to be a dab page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph@Primefac I understand it now. Once an IP user (long time abuse report and sockpuppet user), was asking me to link to categories. I did not quite understand all that he was telling me, but he guided me, and I finally managed to do all that he wanted. It was later that I came to know that he was a banned user.
While he was guiding me, he forgot to use ":" before writing [[Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories]], and so my talk page got categorized as an disambiguation page. I hope things get clear now. And lots of thanks to you David, for correcting the error. You know what, I find that many editors are 'really' there to help others, and not just busy with their own work. If it would not have been you, then I could not have understood what the problem was. Thanks again. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph Oh my god! How should I remove it then? Why did it end up there? I did not perform any experiments. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph I still don't understand. I put {{subst:uw-username}} between the nowiki template. Then why did it create problems? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"First of all Happy New Year to Everyone. Hope you are all doing good and healthy. I previously raised an Appeal via UTRS but response from it went unfortunately to spam so I did not take notice of it. I had been banned by Community Decision more than half a year ago, at the end of may. I now would like to ask kindly for an unblock by WP:SO and a New Beginning. In 2021 I translated dozens of articles and instead of learning and being thankful for being noticed about it I got angry and upset. I admit that I definitely made several mistakes not only but mainly while translating articles by not tagging them correctly. By making several hundred edits every single day - thousands a week, 6-8 hours entirely every day - I surely had been involved by far too much and at this time I took criticism too often as a personal attack since my main task - or let us be honest: meaning of life at this time - was to edit and improve Wikipedia. Since my ban you may perhaps has noticed that I still have been from time to time active on the Spanish version and several other Wiki projects. I would be okay for removing all of my previous User-Rights since I am only planning to edit from time to time and not even by far that much and in the areas as last year. Thank you in advance for considering my appeal, stay safe. Best, CommanderWaterford"
Posting this for the community to review, the discussion that lead to the block is here: [48]RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that the link that RickinBaltimore has provided was the initial close of that discussion. The discussion was subsequently re-opened, and a bit more was said. See this additional section. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through that discussion, several concerns were raised about copyright violations in work they had written. This unblock request does not appear to mention that issue, which seems quite a crucial one regarding editing here. CMD (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CounterPunch RFC and extended confirmed
A user with all of 16 edits, 12 of them on one day in 2020, and none since August 8th of last year, found their way to the RFC on CounterPunch at WP:RSN. The user made a comment referencing Israel Shamir, which a quick look at Talk:Israel Shamir will show to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Many of the comments in the RFC are specifically discussing material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. Additionally, AlexEng has reported an attempt at stealth canvassing by a suspected sock of יניב הורון, a banned user largely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict topic with his various socks, see here. The last RFC had 6 confirmed socks in it, 5 from Icewhiz and another from NoCal100, both active in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich undid the striking of the comment, claiming that neither the comment nor the RFC is related the ARBPIA topic area, despite the comment specifically discussing a subject that is listed as being in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. The most recent clarification by ArbCom shows that such discussions should be treated as extended-confirmed protected, and given the comment specifically discusses the ARBPIA topic area I find the removal of the strikeout dumbfounding. Can we get a ruling on if EC applies to that discussion? nableezy - 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the user is probably a sock and his edit will be struck soon but lets assume they are not, their edit is not about the conflict but about holocaust denial that has nothing to do with I/P conflict Shrike (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff of the comment at issue: Special:Diff/1065201226. It's in an RFC about whether CounterPunch should be deprecated -- not an RFC that is covered by ARBPIA. The comment doesn't mention Israel/Palestine. It does link to a source that mentions it, but I don't think that 30/500 in ARBPIA means that no non-ECP can even link to a source that mentions I/P without having their comment struck. That's too much attenuation. No doubt that the editor is a sock, and I'm simultaneously !voting in favor of ECPing all of these RSN general-reliability RFCs... but merely linking to a source that mentions I/P in a comment that doesn't mention I/P, in an RFC that isn't about I/P, can't be grounds for striking a non-ECP's !vote. Levivich 16:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is about Israel Shamir, and Talk:Israel Shamir shows that to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Non extended-confirmed users may not discuss material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area in the WP namespace, full stop. The very idea that an RFC that had its prior run infested with Icewhiz socks is not related is absurd, and having editors obfuscate that relation away is dispiriting. nableezy - 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But as far as I can tell they did not and Israel Shamir does not only write about the israle/Palestine conflict (and the material posted mentioned neither). In fact, it seemed more related to his work as a notorious holocaust denier.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the banner at Talk:Israel Shamir? I have zero interest in discussing the merits of the comment here, this is not the place for that. nableezy - 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that no non-ECP editor can mention Israel Shamir anywhere on Wikipedia, even in a discussion not about ARBPIA, in a comment not about ARBPIA, simply because Shamir's Wikipedia article is tagged with the ARBPIA tag? By your logic, no non-ECP editor can mention Alan Dershowitz. Levivich 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Broadly construed" covers a lot of ground.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Do you not understand what broadly construed means? Do you believe that many of the comments in that RFC do not directly relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Whatever, I dont want to waste anymore time with this type of crap, and I await an admin to respond. Consider me uninterested in any further discussion with you on this topic. nableezy - 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you guys completely lost your minds? So you think non-ECP editors cannot mention, anywhere on Wikipedia the following topics: Simon Wiesenthal Center, Religious war, Military occupation, or Alice Walker, all of which are tagged with the ARBPIA tag. That is not what "broadly construed" means. Non-ECP editors can't engage in discussions about the topic; they are not prevented from mentioning anything related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my take, what it means is those ARTICLES are covered by it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the Arca "I cannot prescriptively give a definition of "broadly construed" beyond "if it is related broadly in the opinion of a reasonable uninvolved individual" so let's wait for someone like that who has not "lost their mind" to say. Although I have to say I feel quite sane. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - Levivich writes (his own words) - No doubt that the editor is a sock[50] so why did Levivich consciously restored (un-striked[51]) (in his view) sock puppet's comment? What is such action called again administrators? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Becouse we struck only after CU confirmed it he will probably do it before RFC ends and that the reason I tagged his comment as SPA till that. Shrike (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's comment was struck becasue that editor is not eligible[52] to comment in that topic area, NOT becase they were declared a sock puppet. Levivich restored their comment and later claimed that editor is an obvious sock puppet. What is such action called again @Shrike? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You knowingly restored a sock puppet's comment (your own words[53]). We have an issue here. Would you mind undoing your action, since you have no doubts the user is a sock-puppet Levivich ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wp:spi then look into it and ban them if they are. But an accusation is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - it's called WP:AGF, and it's a policy here. Levivich 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since many of you know and like me, may I propose a way to avoid further conflict? (1) Can we please agree to tag possible socks with {{spa}}, and then before the discussion is closed a checkuser can review, and/or the painstaking work of sockpuppet investigation can be done, to strike the statements of improper accounts. (2) As for EC, it seems to me that the restriction applies to any edits exhibiting the problematic behavior, even on pages only tangentially related to the topic. If the scope of the EC restriction is disputed, I recommend requesting a clarification from ArbCom, rather than engaging in circular debates. Let them earn their pay. It may also be useful to let the person closing the discussion decide whether the EC restriction should apply, rather than the involved editors debating this issue endlessly. JehochmanTalk 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that these three accounts are operated by the same person. I agree that not much more can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I will be back when I wake up. AlexEng(TALK) 12:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
