Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343) (bot |
→Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal: rmv spurious line |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}} |
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}} |
||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
||
== Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal == |
|||
{{atop|There is no consensus to lift the topic ban at this time. I suggest that {{ping|SecretName101}} take note of the Oppose !votes here which prevent a lifting of the ban at this time, in particular those noting that the topic ban has been violated several times and that SecretName101 does not seem to fully the grasp the reasons for the original ban or is evasive in discussion regarding this. If you want to come back for a further review of this, please do so demonstrating a complete absence of any edits in the areas you've been banned from, and also explain clearly how your editing will be different going forward from how it was before the ban. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 09:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
*{{Userlinks|SecretName101}} |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1051894875#Threats_being_made_to_me Original ANI discussion] |
|||
*[[User_talk:SecretName101#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction|Talk-page discussion]] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1058825089#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_SecretName101 Earlier appeal] |
|||
It has been over five months since {{Ping|El_C}} put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone. |
|||
I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution. |
|||
<br>___________ |
|||
Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can. |
|||
Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following: |
|||
In related edits, I improved [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson]] and [[Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson]], and spun-off/expanded [[Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson]], [[First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson]] and [[Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson]]. |
|||
In related edits, I improved [[William McAndrew]], expanded [[1927 Chicago mayoral election]], created [[William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign]] and [[Administrative hearing of William McAndrew]], and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me. |
|||
I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators. |
|||
I improved [[Thomas Menino]], and created the spun-off article [[Mayoralty of Thomas Menino]]. |
|||
I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians. |
|||
I made improvements to other articles. |
|||
I published new articles such as [[Michael Cassius McDonald]], [[Benjamin Willis (educator)]], [[Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system]]. |
|||
In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits. |
|||
I made other categorization-related edits as well. |
|||
I began work on drafts such as [[Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States]]. |
|||
___________<br> |
|||
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me. |
|||
[[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Note''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1051894875#Threats_being_made_to_me Permalink to relevant AN thread]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to [[User_talk:SecretName101#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction|this lengthy talk-page discussion on it]]. [[Special:Contributions/109.255.211.6|109.255.211.6]] ([[User talk:109.255.211.6|talk]]) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|SecretName101}}, You mentioned the [[Thomas Menino]] article, so I took a quick look. How are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Menino&diff=1059057171&oldid=1058325698 this edit] concerning [[Robert Kraft ]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Menino&diff=1059225816&oldid=1059225522 this edit] regarding [[Elizabeth Warren]] not violations of a topic ban {{tq|1="from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"}}? That's as far forward from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SecretName101&diff=1051915773&oldid=1051894258 topic ban] as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as [[2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts]]), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SecretName101|contribs]]) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)</span> |
|||
::::So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then: |
|||
::::::::*Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... <s><small>If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to... </s>struck, because they finally did do that...''</small>) |
|||
::::::::*What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc.. |
|||
::::::::*How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that ''do'' I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project. |
|||
::::::::::I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article. |
|||
::::::::::The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::Elaborate? [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions. |
|||
:::::::::::::::A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project. |
|||
:::::::::::::::I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the {{tq|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Stevenson (businessman)|"...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway"]]}} which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now.<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::"Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::"Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction? |
|||
:::::::::::I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet. |
|||
:::::::::::What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down? |
|||
:::::::::::Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck.<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern. |
|||
::::::::::::But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why {{tq|"''Subject'' is an American businessman and convicted fraudster"}} is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair. |
|||
::::::::::::::I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep. |
|||
::::::::::::::I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not? |
|||
:::::::::::::: have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban {{tq|"from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"}} because your {{tq|"memory of how it works subsided or got foggy"}}. Can you see how that might be a concern? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
:{{Ping|Black Kite}} I really don't appreciate that your first reason for voting against lifting is that you believe I denied "obvious" motivation for creating that article. I resent that users have been attempting to force a false-"confession" of malicious intent. I had no malicious intent, and I will not lie that I did. It is a sad state of affairs that the rule-of-thumb of assuming good faith on Wikipedia is being so blatantly violated, and I have been repeatedly reprimanded for not agreeing to make a false confession. I made a mistake, and I have admitted that repeatedly. I urge others to take that at face value please. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support removal of topic ban'''. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out...<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support lifting topic ban''' given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose for now'''. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their {{tq|1="memory of how it works subsided or got foggy"}} then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support removal of topic ban'''. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - [[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792|talk]]) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*With regret, I also '''oppose for now'''. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1058825089#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_SecretName101 the previous appeal], in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but {{tq|editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons ..., broadly construed}} is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban: {{tq|There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”.}} I am not [[WP:AGF|imputing to the editor]] an {{tq|intent to deceive or violate}}; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban. {{tq|[I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia}} is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. I was extremely unimpressed by the original issue and the fact that the OP tried to deny what was very obvious in their motivation for writing that article, and I am equally unconvinced by the further evasive answers to Begoon and the fact that they still don't appear to understand the problem. Also, they're not even keeping to the topic ban anyway, as per the examples above - and also a number of edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impeachment_inquiry_against_Bill_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=1073980017 this]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' The OP does not get why they were topic banned in the first place --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' he apologized and admitted his mistake. This editor has done far more positive things for the project than this one screw-up, so why prevent and disincentivize overall productive editors from doing more good work? It looks to me like he got the message loud and clear, he's not a vandal, or purposely seeking trouble, and I'm not seeing any signs that he is/would be a repeat offender. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 02:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC) <sup>'''Adding''' 14:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC):</sup> I just read the ANI discussion, and 100% agree that notability is not inherited, and that the sources sucked to the point that in-text attribution would not suffice; the redirect should prevent future mishaps. Having said that, I'm still of the mind that El C's t-ban, coupled with admin & community reprimands (and unnecessary interrogation by a few), sent home a strong enough message to this established editor; ROPE is a good safety precaution when applied as originally intended. I also very much appreciate admins like El C who have a low tolerance for noncompliance with WP:BLP, and will take appropriate action. As for NPP, we now have the ability to add autopatrolled mainstream articles to our queue if we see a problem. It probably isn't enough considering we lack trained volunteers and admins. We need more energetic editors to sign-up for the courses offered at [[WP:NPPSCHOOL]], especially in light of the outstanding admins who were once active leaders at NPP. We consider it the next step up to adminship. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] |
|||
*'''Support''' There are slips in the ban, however, no one addressed them at the time. Had they done so, it could have been clarified at the time/fixed. To use it now is pointless. It isn't swept under the bridge, but holding on to it for 3+ months just to drop now...was it ''really'' that much of a problem? He has admited msitakes <!--intentional misspelling for humor-->. Give him a chance. We can always block/re-ban if necessary. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{abottom}} |
|||
== Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines == |
== Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines == |
||
Revision as of 09:47, 16 June 2022
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 31 | 43 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 27 | 32 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 117 sockpuppet investigations
- 13 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 45 elapsed requested moves
- 5 Pages at move review
- 21 requested closures
- 64 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 27 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Original ANI discussion
- Talk-page discussion
- Earlier appeal
It has been over five months since @El C: put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone.
I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.
___________
Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.
Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:
In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.
In related edits, I improved William McAndrew, expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me.
I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.
I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.
I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.
I made improvements to other articles.
I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.
In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.
I made other categorization-related edits as well.
I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.
___________
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me.
SecretName101 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban
"from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"
? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:
- Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now...
If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to...struck, because they finally did do that...) - What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
- How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now...
- Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:
- There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project.
- I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article.
- The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Elaborate? SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions.
- A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project.
- I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the
"...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway"
which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. Begoon 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the
- No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now. Begoon 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction?
- I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet.
- What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down?
- Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck. Begoon 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern.
- But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why
"Subject is an American businessman and convicted fraudster"
is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. Begoon 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)- It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair.
- I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep.
- I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not?
- have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban
"from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"
because your"memory of how it works subsided or got foggy"
. Can you see how that might be a concern? Begoon 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)- Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban
- Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why
- "Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I really don't appreciate that your first reason for voting against lifting is that you believe I denied "obvious" motivation for creating that article. I resent that users have been attempting to force a false-"confession" of malicious intent. I had no malicious intent, and I will not lie that I did. It is a sad state of affairs that the rule-of-thumb of assuming good faith on Wikipedia is being so blatantly violated, and I have been repeatedly reprimanded for not agreeing to make a false confession. I made a mistake, and I have admitted that repeatedly. I urge others to take that at face value please. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support removal of topic ban. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out... Begoon 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support lifting topic ban given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their
"memory of how it works subsided or got foggy"
then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. Begoon 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC) - Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- With regret, I also oppose for now. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and the previous appeal, in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but
editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons ..., broadly construed
is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban:There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”.
I am not imputing to the editor anintent to deceive or violate
; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban.[I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia
is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC) - Oppose. I was extremely unimpressed by the original issue and the fact that the OP tried to deny what was very obvious in their motivation for writing that article, and I am equally unconvinced by the further evasive answers to Begoon and the fact that they still don't appear to understand the problem. Also, they're not even keeping to the topic ban anyway, as per the examples above - and also a number of edits like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The OP does not get why they were topic banned in the first place --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support he apologized and admitted his mistake. This editor has done far more positive things for the project than this one screw-up, so why prevent and disincentivize overall productive editors from doing more good work? It looks to me like he got the message loud and clear, he's not a vandal, or purposely seeking trouble, and I'm not seeing any signs that he is/would be a repeat offender. Atsme 💬 📧 02:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Adding 14:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC): I just read the ANI discussion, and 100% agree that notability is not inherited, and that the sources sucked to the point that in-text attribution would not suffice; the redirect should prevent future mishaps. Having said that, I'm still of the mind that El C's t-ban, coupled with admin & community reprimands (and unnecessary interrogation by a few), sent home a strong enough message to this established editor; ROPE is a good safety precaution when applied as originally intended. I also very much appreciate admins like El C who have a low tolerance for noncompliance with WP:BLP, and will take appropriate action. As for NPP, we now have the ability to add autopatrolled mainstream articles to our queue if we see a problem. It probably isn't enough considering we lack trained volunteers and admins. We need more energetic editors to sign-up for the courses offered at WP:NPPSCHOOL, especially in light of the outstanding admins who were once active leaders at NPP. We consider it the next step up to adminship. Atsme 💬 📧
- Support There are slips in the ban, however, no one addressed them at the time. Had they done so, it could have been clarified at the time/fixed. To use it now is pointless. It isn't swept under the bridge, but holding on to it for 3+ months just to drop now...was it really that much of a problem? He has admited msitakes . Give him a chance. We can always block/re-ban if necessary. Buffs (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines
- Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines
Hello all,
I’d like to share an update on the work on the Enforcement guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct.
In 2022 May, the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team completed a report on the 2022 March ratification vote about the guidelines. Voters cast votes from at least 137 communities. At least 650 participants added comments with their vote. A report is available on Meta-Wiki. (See full announcement)
Following the vote, the Community Affairs committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees asked that several areas be reviewed for improvements. A Revision Drafting Committee will refine the enforcement guidelines based on community feedback.
To help the Revisions committee, input from the community is requested. Visit the Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions, Policy text revision discussions) to provide thoughts for the new drafting committee. (See full announcement)
Let me know if you have any questions about these next steps. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have questions, but you're not gonna like em. Will this nonsense ever end? And what is even the point? El_C 13:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- PR exercise, I assume, to confidently ask for more (big) donation and continue to use it for everything but Wikipedia. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, Assume Goo Foundation! Also: 👴 stop bullying me! I'm just a silly little guy full with a-joyous whimsy! 👴 El_C 15:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @El C the point is to craft a minimum set of expectations around behavior across any Wikimedia project you might go to. I am replying though because I'm curious what nonsense you're seeing - I can think of several different possible answers and just don't know how to read the comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 The main piece of nonsense was that horribly tone-deaf "race and ethnicity" sentence, so I'm pleased to see that's being addressed (I still have no idea WTF the person who wrote that was thinking). I opposed also because of the affirmation and training silliness for advanced rights holders (that's been mentioned as well), and the apparent lack of transparency or right of reply for those accused of infractions - clearly no-one there learnt anything from Framgate. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your perspective on what you found nonsense Black Kite. I remain curious what El C says because I suspect from the sentence construction it's something else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would surmise it was trying (perhaps badly) to address the issues raised, eg. [here]; do races exist as a matter of fact or of human construction, and what implications arise from those two poles with respect to proper/improper discrimination, see also, scientific racism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Endless revisions to an already overcomplicated and convoluted process. The worst part, obviously, is conflating between small, poorly-governed projects and the English Wikipedia, the Foundation's flagship project. Which erodes its agency and autonomy and self-governance. Finally, wrt to the English Wikipedia, again I ask: what is this solution in search of a problem even about? T&S and EMERGENCY seem to be working as intended. Why this time sink? El_C 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks El C, that's helpful. My #1 goal with the this revision is to improve the writing. There was a lot that should have been done before the vote, but was not allowed because there was a deadline to meet. I honestly don't think another revision is "endless" especially because the Board could have taken "yes" for an answer despite the serious concerns and shortcomings you and others have identified here. I'm glad we're revising again because what's in there now isn't good enough.As for why spend English Wikipedia editors time, everyone should come to their own answer and if your choice is not to participate I can understand why. as I participate because of a combination of a desire to see other projects be more successful and because there editors who feel English Wikipedia is broken and unable to self-govern and I want to make sure those voices aren't the only ones in the room. This isn't to say we're perfect - I think there are times that English Wikipedia acknowledges there's a problem and decides to avoid thinking about a solution because it's too hard - but there is a reason that so many other projects adopt our policies, guidelines, and procedures as their own. We're doing good work in the policy areas of the UCoC and making sure that good work can continue even as other projects increase their capacity matters to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I seriously do not understand the insistence that en.wiki should somehow be exempt from this. The whole "autonomy" angle seems misguided. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I seriously look forward to the substance of your guidance, HandThatFeeds, when the thing is finally ratified in, I dunno, 2025...?
- Barkeep49, maybe you're in too deep. Or maybe I'm in too shallow. Personally, I'd probably have chosen non-engagement with this adventure. A fundamental characteristic of the Foundation is that they are, by design, out of touch (and certain recent hires straight out of the shady corporate world only serve to exacerbate this disconnect). BTW, are the Enforcement Officers still a thing? What social contract (un-loyalty pledge) will I have to sign? Will extremism at certain projects (above all else, at the Japanese Wikipedia) ever become a priority? Will there be another vote? And another vote after that? Will reductionism ala HandThatFeeds (above) rue the day? So many quenions. El_C 01:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really believe you'd have chosen non-engagement given that you've chosen to engage here and doing nothing would have been real easy @El C. In terms of what has changed - so far nothing. You can read about what has and will happen at my quasi-blog. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, EZ or not, I don't view my protest here as a form of engagement. Though I suppose you could say that I'm engaging against engagement. Obviously, as chief engager, you take issue with that, which I don't fault you for. It's a lot of work. And, yes, with the interest of the project, specifically, and the movement, in general, in mind — but I still think resistance would have been the better response to this weird and clumsy and alarming overreach that the UCoC represents for .en. El_C 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- At several points in the process I gave serious thought about what resistance would look like and the most obvious answer would be a FRAM like protest. But the issue is I think the enwiki community is more divided around UCoC than it was around FRAM in that our community has many who are firmly opposed - as you seem to be - but also substantial groups who are somewhat ambivalent for or against (which is where I find myself) and in favor. This would suggest some sort of protest would be more symbolic than effective and might have meant that we wouldn't get the current round of revisions we're getting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- That strikes me as counter-factual, because it didn't end up happening (i.e. you've engaged). Also, I'm not seeing a lot of support for it at .en, aside from process wonks who perhaps just enjoy doing process stuff. In any case, another WP:FRAM scenario is the concern of what might follow the finalized UCoC, rather than the actual process of drafting, revising and eventually ratifying it. But maybe it's too late and now we're stuck, for having engaged in what, to .en, is a needless exercise. El_C 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- At several points in the process I gave serious thought about what resistance would look like and the most obvious answer would be a FRAM like protest. But the issue is I think the enwiki community is more divided around UCoC than it was around FRAM in that our community has many who are firmly opposed - as you seem to be - but also substantial groups who are somewhat ambivalent for or against (which is where I find myself) and in favor. This would suggest some sort of protest would be more symbolic than effective and might have meant that we wouldn't get the current round of revisions we're getting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, EZ or not, I don't view my protest here as a form of engagement. Though I suppose you could say that I'm engaging against engagement. Obviously, as chief engager, you take issue with that, which I don't fault you for. It's a lot of work. And, yes, with the interest of the project, specifically, and the movement, in general, in mind — but I still think resistance would have been the better response to this weird and clumsy and alarming overreach that the UCoC represents for .en. El_C 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really believe you'd have chosen non-engagement given that you've chosen to engage here and doing nothing would have been real easy @El C. In terms of what has changed - so far nothing. You can read about what has and will happen at my quasi-blog. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Endless revisions to an already overcomplicated and convoluted process. The worst part, obviously, is conflating between small, poorly-governed projects and the English Wikipedia, the Foundation's flagship project. Which erodes its agency and autonomy and self-governance. Finally, wrt to the English Wikipedia, again I ask: what is this solution in search of a problem even about? T&S and EMERGENCY seem to be working as intended. Why this time sink? El_C 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 The main piece of nonsense was that horribly tone-deaf "race and ethnicity" sentence, so I'm pleased to see that's being addressed (I still have no idea WTF the person who wrote that was thinking). I opposed also because of the affirmation and training silliness for advanced rights holders (that's been mentioned as well), and the apparent lack of transparency or right of reply for those accused of infractions - clearly no-one there learnt anything from Framgate. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- PR exercise, I assume, to confidently ask for more (big) donation and continue to use it for everything but Wikipedia. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's going to be very easy to weaponize the UCoC against en.wiki. I see colossal timesinks ahead of us.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- This Code of Conduct is going to be weaponized to drag editors who oppose groupthink before a non-representative kangaroo court where they have no real ability to defend themselves. We already have our own elected court (ArbCom). ArbCom is defective and frequently criticized, but it's ours. Why do we need a parallel structure that is directed by corporate climbers and clout-seekers who know less about our community than we do? Jehochman Talk 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because there should be a backup if ARBCOM goes off the rails (either too activist or does nothing in the face of real issues)? I personally feel that post-FRAM issues the place has gotten better. Previously I felt there were a fair number of "unblockables" who were managing to fly just below the radar on a regular basis. And I think "framgate" was what kicked things into a better place. So as much as I resent WMF stepping in, I think it was a net positive. That said, I'm opposed to the UCoC because I think it has far too much potential to move the needle too far. Things are, IMO, working pretty well right now and I think the expected value at en is a net negative with a non-trivial risk of a being a huge net negative. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The thing passed multiple votes. WMF is still delaying its implementation and trying to address the objections raised by opposers. What a bunch of assholes, eh? Really shoving it down our throats, eh? A real power grab that involves listening and moving slowly and asking for input. This is what tyranny looks like!!!
Levivich 13:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh. Passed, but do we know how many supported or opposed at en? What if 90 percent opposed? We do not know. We cannot know. We did not get to vote in each invidudal project like with the annual arbcom vote (which I'm sure the scrutineers could have managed). Instead, opaqueness and reductionism remains the order of the day. But at least Levivich feels included, so I guess there's that. El_C 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Suppose 90% of enwiki voters opposed it, but the measure still passed. What should the WMF do then? Exempt enwiki from the UCOC?
- What percentage of the UCOC drafting committees (plural, as I think there have been more than one, I've lost count) are made up of enwiki editors? Like 30%? 50%?
- Remember when people said that if the vote failed, the WMF would keep having the vote over until they got the result they wanted? Well, the vote passed, and they're still having the vote over. How does this fact fit into the conspiracy theories about the WMF's true motives here?
- All of these questions are rhetorical. Levivich 15:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Rhetorical quneions, I'm in. So, in that instance, they should indeed seriously re-think of adjusting or even exempting (which the process ought to have accounted for). But we don't know. That's the point. We could have had a grand total that would have also showed us individual project breakdowns. Still, I highly doubt it's a conspiracy. Probably just incompetence rather any sort of nefarious motive, though I suppose labeling this criticism as a "conspiracy theory" is a useful rhetorical device. El_C 15:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing like a good old appeal to ridicule to muddy the waters and bury legitimate concerns about opacity and misguided (if well-intentioned) management. WaltCip-(talk) 16:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich the original enforcement guidelines drafting committee had roughly 3 out of 11 volunteers (myself, FULBERT, and MJL) who would identify primarily (or largely) as enwiki editors plus 1 staff member who is also an enwiki admin (out of 4). We only have 8 volunteers on the revision committee, with the same 3 enwiki editors (neither of the 2 staff are enwiki editors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Rhetorical quneions, I'm in. So, in that instance, they should indeed seriously re-think of adjusting or even exempting (which the process ought to have accounted for). But we don't know. That's the point. We could have had a grand total that would have also showed us individual project breakdowns. Still, I highly doubt it's a conspiracy. Probably just incompetence rather any sort of nefarious motive, though I suppose labeling this criticism as a "conspiracy theory" is a useful rhetorical device. El_C 15:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mathematically if 90% of enwiki voters opposed, then about 90% of the voters of the rest of the movement would have had to support it because enwiki voters made up just under half the electorate. 90% is just a ridiculously high number to suggest are opposed. You don't have 90% in this thread, which is clearly negative (Potentially opposed: El C, Used, Black Kite, Alanscottwalker, S Marshall, Jehochman, Hobit, Walt Clip; Potentially Support: That Hand, Levvich - that's 80% opposed). It is entirely possible enwiki voters did vote it down - it's somewhere between really unfortunate and unacceptable that the voting software is too antiquated to do this basic analysis - but if we did then realistically it's more likely to be 65% opposition max. But it's also possible we were closer to 50/50 or possible that enwiki narrowly approves when we're voting anonymously. We just don't know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Has the WMF considered running an enwiki only poll? The largest opposition to implementing this is likely to be from enwiki with the assumption that the majority of editors here oppose it, but if they can prove that assumption wrong then that issue would be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also doubt it's at 90 percent opposition, but I also also doubt it's 50/50. But, again, this is the problem: needing to rely on conjecture and anecdotal estimates falls short. And antiquated voting software notwithstanding, some or all of the votes could be held locally (as mentioned, I'm confident that'd be something the scrutineers could handle). Concludsion: No, no violent. I just want to ask him a quneion.
El_C 15:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know it's impossible to have multiple simultaneous votes right now so it would mean some sort of drawn out process to allow wiki to vote in sequence. When admin elections looked possible @Xaosflux did a whole bunch of work on things, so pinging him because I know he was exploring the possibility of whether it was technically possible to do a vote here on enwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 not quite yet, but it would be trivial to create another poll that requires you to have some sort of enwiki suffrage if we wanted to judge only voters from enwiki that met it. I have no reason to think that @JSutherland (WMF): and team is lying about the results in collusion with the scrutineers. WMF staffers handle the decryption and tallying after stewards strike ineligible voters (the stewards can't tell what the vote is - they can just nullify it before it is counted). The "homewiki" (which is probably right for at least 70% of the entries) is listed here and shows enwiki for about 35% of the voters. About 2% of the voters were employees of WMF voting from their work accounts - so those are likely to be biased, but the overall % of them is not that high. enwiki certainly has many many more eligible voters, but we only had ~911 show up to vote. Why? I'm guessing a lot of it was "how should this thing that we already decided on deal with enforcement" was the presentation - not "Do you agree with this thing at all" - especially when the "this thing" requires hours of reading to have a good understanding of what you are commenting on. — xaosflux Talk 17:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you got the idea that I was questioning Joe or any of the scrutineers as this simply not the case. I think the vote tallys accurately reflect the will of those who voted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 apologies, I didn't mean to imply that, just that I don't think that a "local" secret ballot would fix any of the overall concerns from the threads above (because the "counting" part is really all that was blackboxed). I think one thing that the stats show we can probably agree on is that most active contributors didn't vote at all! — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the low project turnout is its own problem, but I think the issue that's most frustrating those here is the idea that we don't know how enwiki feels compared to the movement as a whole. So in that sense, a local votewiki instance would suffice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 oh sure, I'm just saying that doing that isn't dependent on managing the SecurePoll locally, it could still be a votewiki poll - just like our other enwiki polls we put on there. — xaosflux Talk 15:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I just know that Joe, and others, spend a lot of time doing stuff to make those elections run. If it were, instead, something that could be managed locally that would give us a lot more ability to use volunteer (rather than staff time) to make things run. See the idea below of incorporating it into ACE which would be one way of solving that. Another would be to just ask if we could do a special election. I'd somewhat lean towards doing it at ACE just because we know turnout will be fairly good, though it does add some complexity to that election so I could understand why others would prefer to do it separately (if possible). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 oh sure, I'm just saying that doing that isn't dependent on managing the SecurePoll locally, it could still be a votewiki poll - just like our other enwiki polls we put on there. — xaosflux Talk 15:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the low project turnout is its own problem, but I think the issue that's most frustrating those here is the idea that we don't know how enwiki feels compared to the movement as a whole. So in that sense, a local votewiki instance would suffice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 apologies, I didn't mean to imply that, just that I don't think that a "local" secret ballot would fix any of the overall concerns from the threads above (because the "counting" part is really all that was blackboxed). I think one thing that the stats show we can probably agree on is that most active contributors didn't vote at all! — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you got the idea that I was questioning Joe or any of the scrutineers as this simply not the case. I think the vote tallys accurately reflect the will of those who voted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 not quite yet, but it would be trivial to create another poll that requires you to have some sort of enwiki suffrage if we wanted to judge only voters from enwiki that met it. I have no reason to think that @JSutherland (WMF): and team is lying about the results in collusion with the scrutineers. WMF staffers handle the decryption and tallying after stewards strike ineligible voters (the stewards can't tell what the vote is - they can just nullify it before it is counted). The "homewiki" (which is probably right for at least 70% of the entries) is listed here and shows enwiki for about 35% of the voters. About 2% of the voters were employees of WMF voting from their work accounts - so those are likely to be biased, but the overall % of them is not that high. enwiki certainly has many many more eligible voters, but we only had ~911 show up to vote. Why? I'm guessing a lot of it was "how should this thing that we already decided on deal with enforcement" was the presentation - not "Do you agree with this thing at all" - especially when the "this thing" requires hours of reading to have a good understanding of what you are commenting on. — xaosflux Talk 17:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know it's impossible to have multiple simultaneous votes right now so it would mean some sort of drawn out process to allow wiki to vote in sequence. When admin elections looked possible @Xaosflux did a whole bunch of work on things, so pinging him because I know he was exploring the possibility of whether it was technically possible to do a vote here on enwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also doubt it's at 90 percent opposition, but I also also doubt it's 50/50. But, again, this is the problem: needing to rely on conjecture and anecdotal estimates falls short. And antiquated voting software notwithstanding, some or all of the votes could be held locally (as mentioned, I'm confident that'd be something the scrutineers could handle). Concludsion: No, no violent. I just want to ask him a quneion.
- Has the WMF considered running an enwiki only poll? The largest opposition to implementing this is likely to be from enwiki with the assumption that the majority of editors here oppose it, but if they can prove that assumption wrong then that issue would be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh. Passed, but do we know how many supported or opposed at en? What if 90 percent opposed? We do not know. We cannot know. We did not get to vote in each invidudal project like with the annual arbcom vote (which I'm sure the scrutineers could have managed). Instead, opaqueness and reductionism remains the order of the day. But at least Levivich feels included, so I guess there's that. El_C 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The nuclear option would be to hold an en-wiki-wide vote of confidence in the UCoC using RfC format.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would hardly consider it a nucelar option if someone were to follow through on what xaos suggests above is possible and make it so we could hold an enwiki anonymous vote on the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think this would be a good idea. I honestly don't have a clue where it would come out. Heck, I'm not certain what I'd vote. But I think it would be good to have the discussion that would likely accompany the vote. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also think this would be a good idea; it would allow us to discuss all of UCoC, rather than just its enforcement mechanism. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Like. El_C 12:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- One idea that was suggested to me off-wiki is to tie it into ACE. Because we do approval voting for that, a worst case scenario would be to have "candidates" that would let ACE voters (which we know gets as big of a turnout on enwiki as anything) weigh in and would hopefully give us a good sense of where enwiki stands. We could even do two "candidates": one for the UCoC policy text (per Billed Mammal and El C above) and one for UCoC enforcement. The best case scenario would be separate questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have expected to just have an RfC. I mean this is really a request for comments. I guess if we're worried about peer pressure something else might make sense. But as someone without a horse in this race, I think I'd learn more from an open vote than anything. But maybe it wouldn't give us what we want to know? Hobit (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we just do an RfC, I think it's unlikely we'll get the same level of enwiki participation we got at the ratification vote and so a vote becomes easier to dismiss by everyone. The only time we get that level of participation is with ACE, hence my suggestion of using that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer an RfC, as it gives us an opportunity to discuss and understand the reasons that people oppose UCoC, and the reasons people support it, but if you believe that the WMF will ignore it then ACE is the better option - how do we get UCoC and the enforcement mechanism on the ballot? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we just do an RfC, I think it's unlikely we'll get the same level of enwiki participation we got at the ratification vote and so a vote becomes easier to dismiss by everyone. The only time we get that level of participation is with ACE, hence my suggestion of using that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have expected to just have an RfC. I mean this is really a request for comments. I guess if we're worried about peer pressure something else might make sense. But as someone without a horse in this race, I think I'd learn more from an open vote than anything. But maybe it wouldn't give us what we want to know? Hobit (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the point. A vote of confidence would be immaterial. No matter how many people you get to show up to the RfC, WMF can always claim that the RfC is too localized and that the prior ratification vote represents a more accurate cross-section of Wikipedia users. It's also not as if en.wiki has had the best reputation in interfacing with WMF in recent years. In fact I'd say the relationship is one of mutual enmity. That doesn't help the legitimacy case. WaltCip-(talk) 14:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 13
Special:Contributions/116.48.104.0/24,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked by Sergecross73. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. I've dealt with this spammer many times before. They're generally extremely easy to spot, so you can report them to me whenever you see them and I'll block them ASAP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. I've dealt with this spammer many times before. They're generally extremely easy to spot, so you can report them to me whenever you see them and I'll block them ASAP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some IP range have been blocked for other admin,but I feel you can look out Special:Contributions/219.77.200.0/22,if this IP range have edit,you can blocked it.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 14:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Sergecross73,Special:Contributions/218.250.188.0/22.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 03:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sergecross73,218.250.188.0/22 continued.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Request resurrection of article about George Philips (died ca 1696), author of "Lex Parliamentaria"
I request that the article on George Philips (ca 1630- ca 1696), a member of the Irish Parliament, and author of "Lex Parliamentaria", be revived and posted on Wikipedia (if not, I request that the article be emailed to me). I wrote a bio of him for the Parliamentary Journal back in 1986 and I would like to have a copy of the Wiki article, which had details I lacked, and also I want to add some details to the Wiki article. George Philips's book was the major source of Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which in turn was the basis for American Congressional procedure and American parliamentary law.
Thank you for your efforts on my behalf. Sussmanbern Sussmanbern (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sussmanbern: Could you be more specific on what page you would like? I looked at George Philips and George Phillips, and neither seems to have any sign of the individual you're referring to. — Wug·a·po·des 04:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sussmanbern: as far as I can see we never had an article about George Philips (historian). —Kusma (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the links to that nonexistent page, there may be two different historians with this name. —Kusma (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
¶ I had thought there had been an article on him, apparently I was wrong. I will add biographical data to the article on Lex Parliamentaria. Sussmanbern (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
To be more specific, in the Wiki article on LEX PARLIAMENTERIA there is a broken link to a supposed article on the author George Philips -- who is not either of the men with the same name for which there are Wiki articles. This third George Philips apparently had an article once upon a time (I think I remember seeing it years ago) but not now. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find any evidence of one so far. The original version of the article (2008-2009) linked (wrongly) to George Philips, which was about Sir George Philips, 1st Baronet. This was later disambiguated. I don't see any deleted revisions floating around; nothing to suggest a deletion discussion for anyone by that name. I'm happy to restore if evidence surfaces. Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
¶ Apparently I remember seeing this when it was linked to the First Baronet (who is not the right George Philips). Sussmanbern (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The often helpful fuzzy deleted page search doesn't find anything relevant either. Hut 8.5 16:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Adminbot BRFA
Hi all, I've opened a BRFA for a one-time cleanup job that will require +intadmin - the job looks big enough that I didn't want to spam userpages with my own account. The BRFA is here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fluxbot 8 where any feedback is welcome. — xaosflux Talk 01:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Once the one-time run is complete, I intend to have that bot de int-admin'd. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
An IP keeps reverting my [1] which is basically trying to declutter the page by removing languages which have the same spelling. Hindko isn't the major language of KPK, Pashto is and Urdu is the national language - so there is no need for Hindko.
Please advice what to do here, thanks. نعم البدل (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- نعم البدل, this seems to be a simple content dispute, and the IP's position does have some merit, so why not take it to the talk page? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 13:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@M Imtiaz: please also see[2] this user is also removing native names from other articles and continuously engaging in edit war with other users, he is refusing to reach any census via talk. 103.141.159.231 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- IP editor, it appears that you have tried to discuss this at نعم البدل's user talk page, which is not the best venue for such a discussion; I have started a new thread here, and would request that any further conversation on this topic take place there. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Persistent IP vandalism at Camille Vasquez
Please can an admin protect this page? SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, starter for four days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want to create pages entitled ........., ·········, and ••••••••• and it should redirect to ・・・・・・・・・, but I can't, because it matches the RegEx .*[^\p{L}\d ]{6}.* QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 20:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- QuickQuokka, you can now freely edit these three pages.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
European Colonization of the Americas
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One editor is threatening to block me. I request mediation. DeCausa is threatneing to block me for disagreeing with him on the European Colonization of the americas page. I am requesting mediation so that he does not block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DeaconShotFire
It's going on 2 weeks now. Would an administrator make a decision on @DeaconShotFire:'s reinstatement request, please? Best to not leave such things open ended. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Deletion discussion open for four months
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itzchak Tarkay, isn't it curious it is open so long? It was relisted twice, last on March ninth.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be listed on AfD for any date. Perhaps at some point a relisting admin removed it from one and forgot to add it to another. I'll close it now. BD2412 T 06:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- My gratitude to you. It was listed on the Israeli deletion list.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Translation Approval- Eyal Waldman
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eyal Waldman is an Israeli businessman who's advancing social issues on a global level. He has a hebrew wikipedia page and I (Swunite4) translated it to English word per word. Awaiting approval for over 10 days, would appreciate advancement or feedback if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swunite4 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is missing the camera scandal and messy divorce with Penn:[3][4][5][6].חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is, in fact, missing sources entirely. It's also located in the OP's user space and not submitted for review. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now at Draft:Eyal Waldman. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Swunite4, this is not the place to request review. I've moved it to draftspace, with a Latin alphabet title and added the tags necessary for you to submit it for review. A biography of a living person without sources will not be approved. It should also link to other wiki articles. Cabayi (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've transwiki'd the source history for anyone that is interested in it, at this point next step is for Swunite4 to go to Draft:Eyal Waldman and complete the "Submit draft for review" process. — xaosflux Talk 14:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cbinetti block review request
Cbinetti (talk · contribs) was page-blocked from European colonization of the Americas by Bishonen on June 11 for disruptive editing, and asked to discuss the issue on the talkpage instead. In about 50 edits since then, Cbinetti repeatedly accused other editors of setting him up, bullying him and discriminating against him for being an Italian, Catholic and disabled person.([7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22], [23]) To be clear: there is no foundation for these accustaions of discrimination since, setting objections of bad-faith aside, there is no indication of anyone even being aware that the editor was Italian, Catholic or disabled. Among others, ScottishFinnishRadish ([24]), Muboshgu ([25] their talkpage) Doug Weller [26], DeCausa [27], Bishonen ([28], their talkpage), Robert McClenon [29], and Acroterion [30] made an effort to guide Cbinetti to stop making these baseless allegations and focus on the content instead. However, Cbinetti persisted and, and in later edits added accusations of unlawful conduct too [31], [32].
At this point, I declined Cbinetti's second unblock request and extended there block to site-wide, including their talkpage, for "WP:IDHT and WP:PA; longer explanation". A subsequent (UTRS appeal #59466 was declined by Deepfriedokra.
Recently, Robert McClennon asked me to review the block I placed and while I continue to believe that Cbinetti is not a right fit for wikipedia, I invite other views. I will temporarily restore the user's access to their own talkpage so that they can participate in this discussion and any admin is welcome to (temporarily or permanently) undo or modify my block as they deem appropriate without concern about getting my prior concurrence, wheel-warring, etc. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously the block is 100% reasonable and defensible; but also if Robert McClenon thinks there is magic to be worked here then I don't see much harm in (at least partially) unblocking with a short and clear explanation of why, and a short and clear statement of expectations to remain unblocked (say, that RMcC had better believe they are listening and proceeding appropriately). JBL (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I declined UTRS appeal #59466 as it at no point addressed the reasons for the block and went on to say they were discriminated against because they have some disability or another, are Catholic, and are Italian. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The IDHT is strong with this one. None of the above efforts worked, and I agree with citing CIR in this case.
That said, there's no harm in giving them yet another chance, and if Robert can get through to them, then there's no limit to the future disagreements he can mediate.– Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- Scratch that. We've wasted enough time with this person. In none of these edits do I see any indication that they get it at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think the block is the right call until they start showing some understanding of why they're blocked, and we have assurances that the personal attacks and disruption won't continue. Then a limited unblock should be on the table. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would oppose any unblock that does not come with an apology for accusing various editors of discrimination and a clarification that Cbinetti does not intend to take any legal action. Baseless accusations of discrimination do as much harm in a community as discrimination itself, if not more, as they trivialize very real problems and make it harder for other editors to be taken seriously when they call out real discrimination. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who has spent sixty-three years overcoming my own limitations, and pushback against asking to have my needs met, I so agree. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse restoring TPA. It will be good to see if they took in my feedback at UTRS. Also, it will be easier to teach and acculturate them into the community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- And if there is any doubt, endorse indefinite block --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse restoring TPA. It will be good to see if they took in my feedback at UTRS. Also, it will be easier to teach and acculturate them into the community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who has spent sixty-three years overcoming my own limitations, and pushback against asking to have my needs met, I so agree. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why this block, of all the blocks made in the last few days, is the one brought to AN for review. I really don't get it at all. Shouldn't there be some reason to believe that they can change their behavior? Shouldn't there be some evidence of non-problematic editing? You realize if everything goes perfectly and he completely changes his approach, a 180 degree turnaround, he's just going to be civilly pushing his POV, right? I'd like User:Robert McClennon to explain why he wanted this block reviewed. I feel like I'm really missing something, or he is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. repinging User:Robert McClenon. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I originally thought that this was primarily a content dispute, and I am often ready to mediate content disputes, even contentious ones. I think that I didn't pose my request to User:Abecedare as clearly as would have been good, so that it may have looked like an unblock request. I was requesting that the editor be unblocked from his own talk page, and that has been done. As I said, I thought that this was primarily a content dispute, but then Cbinetti said that he also needed to discuss his partial block, which he said needed to be lifted, and to discuss the alleged conduct of User:DeCausa. Both of those added requests or conditions place his request outside the scope either of DRN or of anything that I would do anyway. So I apologize for making a request that wasn't clear. I had been willing to try to mediate, but he didn't want to limit the mediation to article content. I am still willing to try to mediate the content dispute, but only if he makes a satisfactory unblock request, but a satisfactory unblock request will be difficult now. Now that he has not only been edit-warring, but engaged in personal attacks and a thinly veiled legal threat, he will have to apologize for a lot before an unblock is reasonable. I hope that this explains what my position was, and what it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: just to be clear, and as I explained to you on your talk page, it not only wasn’t primarily a content dispute with me, it wasn’t a content dispute at all. My only involvement in the article - on one day- was trying to stop him edit warring and getting him to understand basic policies like WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:DeCausa - Okay. I had no idea what Cbinetti's issue was with DeCausa, and I still don't, probably because there isn't an issue that can be explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's all on Cbinetti's talk, if you enjoy reading. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:DeCausa - Okay. I had no idea what Cbinetti's issue was with DeCausa, and I still don't, probably because there isn't an issue that can be explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: just to be clear, and as I explained to you on your talk page, it not only wasn’t primarily a content dispute with me, it wasn’t a content dispute at all. My only involvement in the article - on one day- was trying to stop him edit warring and getting him to understand basic policies like WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse block Wikipedia is not suitable for everyone and it would be unkind to Cbinetti to prolong this before the inevitable result. Checking contributions shows the correct administrative actions have been taken. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This account's contributions to the User_talk namespace, which I've reviewed in full, are not, in my inexpert judgement, behaviourally distinguishable from trolling. With regrets, Folly Mox (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also (Non-administrator comment). My goodness, what a time sink. If they had even hinted at the slightest bit of remorse or self-awareness over where they went wrong, there may have been something salvageable here. No redeeming quealities, leave blocked, keep talk page access off, and walk away. Zaathras (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fully endorsed. What a waste of time. No unblock should happen without a full retraction of all accusations of persecution. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 05:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse it doesn't look like this editor can work with others, which is an essential skill in a collaborative project. They've reacted to opposition to their changes by writing at length to accuse other people of discriminating against them for being Italian-American, Catholic and/or disabled, which is clearly not true (nobody knew this editor was Italian-American/Catholic/disabled until they started making these accusations). The UTRS appeal includes a claim that the 4000-character limit is far too restrictive and a request for a phone call so they can give even more information. At the bare minimum an unblock would need some kind of awareness of this, a commitment that it won't happen in the future, and a retraction of the baseless claims of discrimination. Hut 8.5 18:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
For reference, 4,000 words is enough to write an extended essay, the largest research paper in the Diploma Programme.I only just realised it says "characters", not "words", but the point still stands. Do they really think they can make a research paper based on their false discrimination and rage? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If this is their real name (a web search shows there is an adjunct prof), and as they have expressed real life ramifications, they should be allowed to request a username change. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, this name seems to be blocked, I assume to prior issues he has had with prior editors that didnt disclose paid editing, as he has explained to me. I have been hired to retry the page and would like to submit to AFC. I have already disclosed on my user page that he has hired me. He now qualifies due to recent win of HMMA Awards and Global Music Awards, which means he meets qualifications for artists. Please unlock his name. Thanks. Dwnloda (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwnloda: Draft:Kobi Arad is not protected. You may create it via WP:AfC. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first attempt to create an article on Kobi Arad was in 2010. At that time the reviewing editors complained about sources of low quality, advertising, copyvio, socking and paid editing. See the discussions at:
- These problems should not prevent User:Dwnloda from attempting a new draft. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am getting error message when I try to create it. It says:
- "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Creation of this page (Draft:Kobi Arad) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists."Dwnloda (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strange, the article Kobi Arad is protected. Draft:Kobi Arad says not.
- That protection expired is 2018.
- I set it to no protection manually, so it should work. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, it's blacklisted. Beyond my ability to fix. Can someone who does the blacklists have a look. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant. See the hits at quarry:query/65355; there was, it appears, a lot of title gaming, though some of those deleted titles may have existed before the afds and mfd - I haven't looked at most of them. The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same. Courtesy ping MER-C, who first blacklisted it. —Cryptic 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, it's blacklisted. Beyond my ability to fix. Can someone who does the blacklists have a look. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Also advise anyone against taking any action here without thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the history. WP:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination), from 2020, is an ok start. —Cryptic 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dwnloda "I have been hired to retry the page" Here's my standard response to paid editors - you wouldn't pay someone to fix your bathroom without knowledge of plumbing. So why would somebody pay you - who joined Wikipedia less than 24 hours ago and have less than 20 edits to your name - to write a Wikipedia article that has already been deleted multiple times and whose last iteration (available to admins) looks like a really awful lop-sided non-neutral over-promotional piece of writing (and that's putting it politely)? I strongly oppose recreation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- To Richie333: I admit that I may not be familiar with all the rules, but I have an IT and web design background. I have worked on Kobi's Website and am aware of his past declines. I have learned many things ever since he last tried to have a page. He has made some mistakes and hired people that did not comply with the rules of disclosing paid editing. I have done a fair amount of research before trying this and along with Kobi, we interviewed some Wikipedia freelancers, but decided that I would do it. Several experts have reviewed the draft and told us that he would qualify and the only reason for his past declines is because of undisclosed paid editing issues. In addition, we were told that he meets the qualifications of Artists due to his Hollywood Music In Media (HMMA) Award, which is a recent achievement and not on prior versions of his page. And he also has other awards like the IMA award. If it is OK, I can take MER-C's advice and post the draft in the Userpage and then ask it to be moved. I also have made sure to make the page non-promotional. If you see promotional issues, then I would be glad to revise. I will appreciate your kind advise and guidance on how to make it legit this time. Dwnloda (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember telling you that. My advice to you is to forget about this commission, tell your client "no", log out, and scramble your password. MER-C 01:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, @MER-C it was @Cryptic's advise. he said "The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same." However I did think it was a good one since the way I was brought up was to give people opportunity, and not block & judge people for past mistakes / being new users. As a new user I would want to feel welcomed by Wikipedia's staff, and not be told to "Scramble my password". I would appreciate that you, like Cryptic consider and give this new article (and myself) a fair chance, and share your expertise in legitimizing this article. Dwnloda (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- In case you haven't realised yet, this is a volunteer run encyclopedia. You're not a volunteer and you're representing a serial abuser of Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 02:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just spoke to Kobe, and on his behalf I apologize. He says that he got ripped off by various freelancers in the past and that no one ever told him it was against policy not to disclosure paid editing. I feel it is not fair to blame him and call him "a serial abuser." In fact he says previous year he hired another person again but this person disclosed that he was a paid editor, but the page unfairly got declined because all admins seem to be against paid editors. There seems to be an unfair prejudice against paid editors. I am trying to do it fairly based on the rules and it is not fair to me or Kobi to decline us based on other's abuse of the system. And in addition, he has now won an HMMA award, this is one of the biggest awards for those that make music for films in Hollywood, so just based on that he meets the qualification guidelines.
- If u wish to discourage / uproot hired editing, the way to do that is through appealing for new rules in Wikipedia, and not by bullying editors who follow the allowed rules. There is civil way to do everything. Dwnloda (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it may be possible to write an article on Arad, but it should be done by somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the biographies of living persons policy and understands what are suitable sources of material, and which will avoid the article getting deleted as before. On that note, I see we have over 1,750 unreferenced biographies, any of all of which could contain libel. That is what paid editors should be doing - cleaning up the bits of the encyclopedia that nobody else wants to do, but which somebody needs to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's pointless, Arad is not notable. Not in Hebrew and not in English.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- None of the arguments, blacklists, etc would prevent the OP Dwnloda from creating a draft at User:Dwnloda/sandbox that would allow the OP to argue for removing the blocks and/or blacklists with a completed article to move into main space. While the history has created a difficult challenge, rather then arguing the potential of an article to meet criteria, write the article in your sandbox. Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's pointless, Arad is not notable. Not in Hebrew and not in English.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it may be possible to write an article on Arad, but it should be done by somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the biographies of living persons policy and understands what are suitable sources of material, and which will avoid the article getting deleted as before. On that note, I see we have over 1,750 unreferenced biographies, any of all of which could contain libel. That is what paid editors should be doing - cleaning up the bits of the encyclopedia that nobody else wants to do, but which somebody needs to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- In case you haven't realised yet, this is a volunteer run encyclopedia. You're not a volunteer and you're representing a serial abuser of Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 02:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, @MER-C it was @Cryptic's advise. he said "The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same." However I did think it was a good one since the way I was brought up was to give people opportunity, and not block & judge people for past mistakes / being new users. As a new user I would want to feel welcomed by Wikipedia's staff, and not be told to "Scramble my password". I would appreciate that you, like Cryptic consider and give this new article (and myself) a fair chance, and share your expertise in legitimizing this article. Dwnloda (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember telling you that. My advice to you is to forget about this commission, tell your client "no", log out, and scramble your password. MER-C 01:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- To Richie333: I admit that I may not be familiar with all the rules, but I have an IT and web design background. I have worked on Kobi's Website and am aware of his past declines. I have learned many things ever since he last tried to have a page. He has made some mistakes and hired people that did not comply with the rules of disclosing paid editing. I have done a fair amount of research before trying this and along with Kobi, we interviewed some Wikipedia freelancers, but decided that I would do it. Several experts have reviewed the draft and told us that he would qualify and the only reason for his past declines is because of undisclosed paid editing issues. In addition, we were told that he meets the qualifications of Artists due to his Hollywood Music In Media (HMMA) Award, which is a recent achievement and not on prior versions of his page. And he also has other awards like the IMA award. If it is OK, I can take MER-C's advice and post the draft in the Userpage and then ask it to be moved. I also have made sure to make the page non-promotional. If you see promotional issues, then I would be glad to revise. I will appreciate your kind advise and guidance on how to make it legit this time. Dwnloda (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Protection of userpages for deceased, ArbCom banned individuals?
Over at RFPP, an editor requested a user page be protected because the user was deceased. Per the deceased Wikipedians guidelines, I checked the source then went to go protect the page. Turns out this editor was arbcom banned in 2005. I'm not sure if protection is worthwhile or even something covered by our guidelines in this situation. I'm erring on not protecting, but wanted to get more opinions on what to do in this situation or similar situations. Given the ArbCom ban, I've also notified the committee in case there's anything to do on that front. — Wug·a·po·des 05:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've requested the account be locked. Page protection seems a run-of-the-mill courtesy to dead folks without any implied approval of their wiki career. I'd be reluctant to add the honorific {{Deceased Wikipedian}} however. Removal of ArbCom notices from the user page ought to be the result of an ArbCom decision. Cabayi (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the editor is deceased, we should add the {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template to their user page. The notice from Arbcom should stay for now, but a request for its removal on the grounds that it is now irrelevant should be made to ARBCOM. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The ArbCom banner has now been removed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've protected the user page; thanks for the opinions on that. I'm also hesitant to add {{Deceased Wikipedian}}, but I don't have a strong opinion. — Wug·a·po·des 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the editor is deceased, we should add the {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template to their user page. The notice from Arbcom should stay for now, but a request for its removal on the grounds that it is now irrelevant should be made to ARBCOM. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Unable to userfy List of numbers in various languages
I recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbers in various languages as "delete", with a note that if anyone wanted the page userfied for migration to Wiktionary (which was an option suggested at the AfD), then I could do that for them. Abcormal has asked for the page to be userfied, so I have attempted to do so, but get this error when trying to do it:
To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (3.1393678188324) exceeded the 3 second limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead.
[b65dde7c-a389-48c6-939c-cd686c2e523a] 2022-06-14 14:34:53: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError"
I think this is because the page is very old and has almost 3,000 revisions in it. Is this something a Steward could help with? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is a temporary technical issue. I'd wait a bit, then retry. Without pounding the undelete button, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Undeleting a few hundred revisions at a time usually works. There's almost 3000; trying to restore all of them at once is doomed. —Cryptic 14:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is there really no other way of doing that other than clicking on a checkbox nearly 3,000 times? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should be able to click on one, shift-click on another, and have everything in between toggle. Dunno offhand if that's a browser feature or implemented in javascript. —Cryptic 14:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (not related to the current issue, but...) I don't know whether to thank you for telling me about this, or curse you for not telling me 15 years earlier. Of course now that you say it, it sounds obvious, but I had no idea. Over the years, I have been dutifully clicking each checkbox - sometimes hundreds of them - when partially restoring a page. You have no idea how difficult it is to go thru life this dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- What Floq said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (not related to the current issue, but...) I don't know whether to thank you for telling me about this, or curse you for not telling me 15 years earlier. Of course now that you say it, it sounds obvious, but I had no idea. Over the years, I have been dutifully clicking each checkbox - sometimes hundreds of them - when partially restoring a page. You have no idea how difficult it is to go thru life this dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should be able to click on one, shift-click on another, and have everything in between toggle. Dunno offhand if that's a browser feature or implemented in javascript. —Cryptic 14:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is there really no other way of doing that other than clicking on a checkbox nearly 3,000 times? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Undeleting a few hundred revisions at a time usually works. There's almost 3000; trying to restore all of them at once is doomed. —Cryptic 14:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, now I've managed to totally balls things up. I restored just over 100 revisions and moved the page to User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages, thinking it would take the deleted revisions with it. But it doesn't, so there are now about 2,800 revisions on a deleted page that need re-attaching to a different page. I feel like going into a corner and sobbing for a bit, and wondered if I should have just closed the AfD as "no consensus" instead. Can anyone help me fix my screwing up? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll get it. —Cryptic 15:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC) ...and, done. Congratulations, you just rediscovered history splitting. —Cryptic 15:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, it makes perfect sense looking at the logs, I just couldn't figure out the logical order in which to do stuff. Or, to be more precise, I thought that there would be somebody more knowledgeable who would do it faster. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll get it. —Cryptic 15:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC) ...and, done. Congratulations, you just rediscovered history splitting. —Cryptic 15:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Does This Qualify as an "Attack Page?"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm tempted to tag this for speedy, but not sure if it qualifies and would rather ask first. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that qualifies as an attack page given it's (at least partially) sourced and has been around for years with the content. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I may go through and remove some of the dubious language and weasel words. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any obvious weasel words. Or dubious language...in any case this isn't really the forum for this. Try WP:BLPN PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just seems like they're trying to make her sound "dangerous."
- E.G. "She is widely accused [by whom?] of causing widespread harassment and violence against children accused of witchcraft." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, WP:BLPN. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've made a couple of edits, but in general I agree with Prax that this isn't an attack page. The body of the article explains the {{by whom?}} of the claim above. I'd agree BLPN is a better place than AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, WP:BLPN. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any obvious weasel words. Or dubious language...in any case this isn't really the forum for this. Try WP:BLPN PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I may go through and remove some of the dubious language and weasel words. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question
Are there any Indian admins on wikipedia ? 223.223.137.226 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Probably but we don't require anyone to identify their nationality, ethnicity etc... PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hindi WP may have a few. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you mean the English Wikipedia then the short answer is "yes". Given the size of India and the number of people there who know English, it would be very surprising if there were not, and I know of admins who have identified, where it is relevant, as being Indian. Of more interest is your reason for asking the question. If it is because you are looking for an admin who knows a particular language or is familiar with some aspect of Indian culture then I may be able to point you in a particular direction, but if you think that an Indian admin would treat you differently because you have an IP address that geolocates to India then I would hope that she or he would not. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone needs assistance in editing Indian topics they could ask at WT:IND. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know of Indian admins. But I do think Indian admins are under represented relative their percentage of our readership and percentage of our editor base. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are 5 admins in Category:Indian Wikipedians. There are probably a lot more, and if there's something specific you need you're more likely to get help by asking directly here than by asking a specific admin. 93.172.251.109 (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)