Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	9	0	9
TfD	0	0	11	0	11
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	84	10	94
AfD	0	0	0	6	6

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 168 sockpuppet investigations
• 15 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 6 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 56 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 119 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 27 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (41 out of 8212 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Draft:Battle of Height 383 2024-08-09 04:51 indefinite edit,move persistent readdition of page to categories no matter how many times it's removed on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds, by an editor who's already been told to stop it Bearcat Lipetsk air base 2024-08-09 04:35 2024-09-09 04:34 edit move protection was not needed here Red-tailed hawk Hawkesbury, Ontario 2024-08-09 00:37 2024-08-16 00:37 edit,move Persistent vandalism Anachronist Baalveer 2024-08-09 00:14 2024-11-09 00:14 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruption resumed as soon as the prior protection lifted. Anachronist Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark 2024-08-08 20:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Special military operation 2024-08-08 18:19 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Muboshgu Template:Election box gain with party link no swing 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Proper name 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Disestablishment category in country by decade/core 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2586 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics 2024-08-08 12:46 2024-09-08 12:46 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Kursk 2024-08-08 12:39 2025-02-08 12:39 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:194.28.84.109 2024-08-08 08:08 2024-11-08 08:08 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot PhonePe 2024-08-07 22:02 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry, block evasion and WP:UPE The Wordsmith Steve Shapiro 2024-08-07 21:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Sudzha 2024-08-07 18:17 2024-08-14 18:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless Hollywood Creative Alliance 2024-08-07 17:33 2024-08-21 17:33 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Discussed at WP:ANI Cullen328 Misandry 2024-08-07 17:28 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/GG -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Buuhoodle 2024-08-07 14:51 2026-08-07 14:51 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Case Oh 2024-08-07 12:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Muhammad Hassaan 2024-08-07 11:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Titan Cameraman 2024-08-07 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Talk:Gaza genocide 2024-08-06 22:57 2024-08-13 22:57 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion 2024-08-06 20:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato The Day Britain Stopped 2024-08-06 19:44 2025-08-06 19:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry Isabelle Belato User talk:RickinBaltimore 2024-08-06 18:19 indefinite move Persistent vandalism RickinBaltimore Khade 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Bokad 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Popere 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Thorat 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Dharala 2024-08-06 16:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Steps (pop group) 2024-08-06 13:09 2024-09-06 13:09 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ramciel 2024-08-06 12:52 2024-09-06 12:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Indigenous peoples of Mexico 2024-08-06 12:21 2025-08-06 12:21 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators' noticeboard/4 2024-08-06 11:39 2025-08-06 11:39 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla User talk:Magnolia677/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk 2024-08-06 11:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Dheyaa al-Din Saad 2024-08-06 06:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ST47 Madhepura district 2024-08-05 22:55 2026-08-05 22:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Direction – Social Democracy 2024-08-05 18:32 2025-08-05 18:32 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree Evangelos Marinakis 2024-08-05 17:50 2025-08-05 17:50 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree 2024 United Kingdom riots 2024-08-05 12:43 2024-08-13 13:20 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Sheikh Hasina 2024-08-05 12:09 2024-10-07 15:09 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C

Ending iban from 2016

Any opposition to rescinding this interaction ban from 2016? The admin in charge, Nyttend, suggested quite a while ago I raise the question here, but it seemed obsolete and not worth bothering with, since one party was blocked as a HughD sock (I was right all along, btw. They said I was mad but I was right; just saying. Just saying. No apologies necessary.) and two others went dark. Any reason to continue enforcing it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• As a note, you weren't IBANNED just on the grounds of accusing someone to be a sock, but for a whole bunch of behaviour - that an account is a sock doesn't change our Civility requirements. All the phrasing in this just makes me distinctly reticent to support any change - you were IBanned from 4 parties - 1 sock, 2 you say are dark - what about the 4th? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those are all valid points. Also, being banned from interacting with people who aren't editing isn't likely to cause you any real problems, although I understand the desire not to have it hanging over your head forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Support - the I-bans should be lifted. Seeing as the 3 accounts-in-question are no longer active. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

PS - and there's no friction with the fourth (active) account. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A few things:

1. There's not 3 accounts, there's 4, making a 5-way iban, counting me.
2. I assumed an account being inactive or blocked doesn't protect me from being sanctioned for so much as mentioning them or touching one of their edits. If so, then I have less reason to request ending the iban.
3. The fourth editor seems to have gone back to what he was doing and there's no reason to assume there will be any further battleground battling from either of us.
4. The two inactive accounts walk and talk and look like single-purpose accounts, either meat or sock puppets, who had no reason to continue editing as long as the battle they'd been brought in to fight was over. One quit editing immediately after the iban, the other hung around a couple more years, fighting with others then quit for no obvious reason. Not perfect proof I was right, but it's not nothing.
5. The blocked sockpuppet might not be an issue, but the sockmaster behind the sock, is as active as ever: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive. They recently burned through four sock accounts on one of their obsessions, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R. They then posted a threat/taunt on my talk page that they are going to go on "amusing" themselves with their usual socking, battlegrounding, and harassment.
6. Next thing you know, one of the topics, Dodge Tomahawk, that was a bitter bone of contention between me and the sockpuppet &co is suddenly reactivated, re-igniting the a 3 year old battle that just happens to have immediately preceded the iban. By an account with a history of sockpuppetry dating to 2008 who went dark in May 2015 earlier in the same year one of the iban participants began, 22 September 2015, and awoke 26 September 2018, one month after the ibanned account made their last edit, 31 August 2018. The tone and word choice of their taunts is pretty consistent, and their editing on topics outside my interest is eerily similar.
7. I know, I know, I should be pinning string to a wall with cards. But talk to anybody who's spent the last 3 years playing whack-a-mole with HughD socks. It does this to a person. It's why I ended up interaction banned.
8. Point being I can't even openly discuss any this without risking violating the iban. If I'm going to still be the target of harassment whenever the sock master feels like activating a sleeper account or making a new one, I should at least be allowed to respond.

So if I'm right, then the iban should be lifted because I'm being harassed by them. If I'm wrong, then it should be lifted because it's long past being necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The fourth account-in-question, is still active. Are you requesting to have your I-Ban between yourself & @Skyring:, lifted? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that it's a pain in the ass to worry about. But on the other hand, I think it's highly unlikely I'll cross paths with him. We're interested in such different topics that if it wasn't lifted I don't think either of us would notice. It's really the iban with other three that is of concern now. I would think admins would prefer to have one less iban to keep track of, but that's not really my problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: what do you mean "no friction with the fourth (active) account". AFAICT, Skyring has not commented whether they support or oppose the iban. Do you simply mean that Dennis Bratland has obeyed the iban? The whole point of an iban is to end friction by ending interactions between editors, so if it's obeyed there should generally be little friction. (Albeit with the complexities of indirect interactions if the editors regularly edit similar articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as Skyring (Pete) wishes the I-Ban to continue between himself & Dennis Bratland? it likely will do so. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support lifting the Iban on the sock, since we generally do that on request. For the inactive ones, I'll probably support as well. As for Skyring, I'll await their comment. I would note that I'm fairly sure that the "appealing the ban" exemption means you also have to perform compulsory notification when appealing the ban. And in any case, if you are unsure whether you're allowed to perform the notification, you should mention that you have not performed it when opening the discussion. Still I'll notify all the unblocked ones for you. Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have given my reasons privately to Nil. I would prefer this iBan continue. --Pete (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Why privately? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So that they do not become a topic of general discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Should be a topic of general discussion, as the IBAN is quite public. But anyways, your choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

One factor to consider is the behavior of all editors involved after the iBan was put in place. For example Dennis Bratland has been blocked from editing for violating the iBan three times. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support removing IBANs except Pete's. Pete saying that they want to keep it in place is good enough justification for me. As for the other IBANs, those can be lift with the failsafe that any uninvolved admin can reimpose them if Dennis somehow gets into a dispute with them upon their return (with the exception of the sockpuppet master which should be converted into a one-way). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 09:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removing interaction ban, due to Dennis having three blocks for violating said interaction ban. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the iban with Pete. Since Pete want's to keep it in place, and Dennis Bratland doesn't seem to have outlined sufficient problems it's causing to warrant lifting it despite the opposition. Especially since, as others have pointed out, the original appeal seems to downplay the reasons for the iban. With 1 active editor, and 2 including one who was active until 2018, who have not been blocked, it's ahrd to claim it's just because of a sock. (As also mentioned, editors really should be able to mostly keep their cool even when dealing with socks anyway.) After further consideration, I also only support lifting for the 2 inactives as long as they remain inactive. If they become active again and they ask for it to be reinstated, this should happen. Dennis Bratland should be notified before it takes effect. For the sock, I support lifting. BTW, I wrote this after reading Pete's email, but I think I would have said more or less the same thing even if I had not read it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support removing IBANs except Pete's. We should only lift active IBANs, such as the one with Pete, if both users wish it. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose I don't generally support giving rope to aggressive editors. Ibans should be revisited and community time should be invested if lifting the ban is beneficial to the project. With due respect to the context, this editor's interactions (such as [1][2][3]) are generally exemplar of a border about to be crossed. Why should we give the benefit of a clean slate here? There's no need to waste our time discussing such ibans. Lourdes 16:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as one of those involved, I'd prefer not to have any interaction at all with this editor. It's been years. I don't seek him out, I don't look at his contributions, I don't trawl his pages. Nothing. The examples given above by Lourdes give me no confidence his manner has changed. Maybe it's me and I just manage to stir him up, and if that is so, then I'd rather nobody gets stirred up. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting I-Ban, between Dennis Bratland & Skyring (Pete) - A) One of the parties prefers to keep the I-Ban in place & B) Lifting the I-Ban, might risk one or both editors eventually ending up before Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone please correct Sennen goroshi's misreading of the block log? It's right there in the dates, times and summaries. There's two actual blocks, not four, and both were the result of trying to tiptoe around these rules preventing me from openly discussing the terms and limits of the iban, and from discussing it by email. I requested passing the administration of the iban to someone who had time to answer their email, and was told no.

  I don't recall at any time that this iban was created as a sanction of me alone, due to my behavior alone. It was a mutual iban, the result of the behavior of all parties. If this was only about me then I alone would have been banned. It's fine if you still see the benefit of continuing the iban, and as I said, I don't see how it matters if it is or isn't lifted between me and Skyring's. Compare the other block logs: [4][5][6]. The it was a mutual interaction ban, and even that was largely premised on the assumption that all the others were editing in good faith. Turns out I was at least partially right, and perhaps entirely. That remains to be seen.

  I don't think it's fair tell the victim (two victims, Skyring and myself, both manipulated) of long term abuse by a swarm of gaslighting sockpuppets that admins deny are even real that they have to do a better job of taking the abuse and pretending their abusers are good faith collaborators. Four days ago this guy spewed taunts on my talk page and just for maximum creepiness, mentioned my kids. The trail of destruction in HughD's wake is a lot bigger concern than any lack of decorum on my part. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: If you really want to end the IBAN with whoever the sock-person is, then don't talk about Pete nor try appealing that specific IBAN. Just focus on the sock person because people like me have no clue who HughD even is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: it seems clear that Pete considers themselves a victim of you as much as of any other sock. I suggest you stop blaming everyone else for your behaviour, since it's not helping anything. You have our clear sympathies for harassment you have suffered from this sock. The trouble is, even if you feel your behaviour with this sock was fine given whatever they did, there are still 3 other editors who you were ibanned from. And AFAICT even you agree that Pete is not a sock. Yet, as said, they still do not wish to have the iban lifted because they do not wish to interact with you based on how things have gone in the past. The editor emailed me privately, I won't discuss the details except to say I responded and one of the things I mentioned was that while I didn't look carefully at the iban discussion I was fairly confident both sides were at fault since that's how these things normally are. So I don't disagree that both sides were at fault, and I think most of us here agree that there was fault all around leading up to the iban. However you are appealing the iban, so your behaviour is likely to come under far more scrunity than any other editor. And as said, if you come across as shifting the blame, it does not generally help an appeal. And I'd note that you were ibanned in 2016, so whatever disgusting things the editor did recently doesn't explain may have happened in 2016. Maybe they were doing the same thing in 2016, but you'd need to show evidence of that from 2016 and frankly re-litigating the iban is rarely constructive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I should emphasise when I say "victim" I'm not saying your behaviour towards Pete was worse than their behaviour to you. Without extensive analysis, both of you can equally be considered victims of each other. Frankly, victim probably isn't the best word, but since you used it I stayed with it. Also "as much as" was a poor wording on my part. It's reasonable to blame the sock more for what happened, just due to the fact they are a sock whatever else they may have done. But this still doesn't mean we ignore the role any of you non socks played in what causing the problems that lead to the iban, and the harm each of you suffered as a result. Also has it occurred to you that it might be easier for us to detect and stop socks from harming Wikipedia and its editors, if we didn't also have to deal with stuff like that which lead to the iban? Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't really answer your question without rehashing a lot of past events. I will say that you should look at what Zachlita, Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers did after the iban was enacted. Look at the 3rr blocks, topic bans, repeated ANI cases and sockpuppet investigations against them. Zachlita materialized to aid the others in their fights, took no interest in anything else, and quit as soon as the iban happened. Conclusion? With me out of the picture, how come the even worse drama continued with these guys, until 72bikers was blocked, and Spacecowboy420 abruptly quit editing for reasons yet to be understood. Did anybody else handle HughD's disruption and manipulation any better than me? The common denominator is him. I think the difficulty in proving he was a sock was because check user seemed to exonerate him and it takes enormous time and energy to study the behavioral patterns, a thankless task that usually results in accusations of paranoia and brings boomerang sanctions. No wonder. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've hidden this because it is a nonproductive discussion by someone who openly admits he's trolling and was (shortly after) indef blocked for grossly uncivil remarks and an open admission of sockpuppetry. It does not contribute to this discussion Buffs (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm getting confused with the claims of victims and sockpuppets, because I keep on reading two victims and some sockpuppets - there were five people who received an interaction ban, right? 1. Dennis - 2. Pete - 3. Blocked sock master. 4 & 5? Are they also blocked sock-puppets of the blocked sock master? Or is Dennis just trying to point blame at everyone else and acting like none of this was his fault in order to get his ban removed? Based on his time spent disputing absolutely fucking everything in the world I'd suggest that Dennis will find drama and conflict wherever he goes and as such there is no point in removing the ban. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC) My understanding is that Dennis Bratland believes the other 2 accounts are likely socks of someone. See the comment above starting with "The two inactive accounts walk and talk and look like single-purpose accounts". Since the accounts remain unblocked, and so I assume there was, at a minimum, insufficient evidence they were socks I don't personally feel this is a useful point of discussion. Even more so since as Dennis Bratland themselves mentioned, one of them continued to edit long after the iban and whatever dispute lead up to it. Dennis Bratland is free to believe that they are simply socks. But for the reason us, it's probably easiest to treat it as a case of we don't know, and will probably never know but in the absence of sufficient evidence, we have to assume they aren't socks, but it also doesn't matter much because they are inactive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC) I keep saying I don’t care if the iban with Skyring isn’t lifted. Keep it. It doesn’t matter. I’m asking to end the iban with 3 inactive accounts. If Spacecowboy420 is a sock of Sennen goroshi, it does matter. I gave links to the HughD SPI and you can read about the lengthy process required to finally tie the 72bikers account to him. Sennen goroshi — someone who has never interacted with me until a couple days ago— is taking a great deal of sudden interest in preventing me from interacting with these 3 dead accounts. It suggests I’m on to something with the behavioral evidence tying him to Spacecowboy420. With 72bikers, HughD was able to avoid getting caught with a simple check user, and that’s likely to be the case here. I don’t see why anyone should really care if I’m ibanned from inactive and blocked accounts. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Sennen goroshi — someone who has never interacted with me until a couple days ago That's true - well apart from you posting on my talk page in 2018 - but, I guess it's easy for you to forget having a minor dispute with someone on Wikipedia, because you do it with almost every single editor you encounter. I checked our previous conversation and it was in response to me removing your personal attacks to another editor that said Now, I say again to you: fuck off, Typ932. Fuck off now and Yeah, no. Totally bogus. Fuck off now This is also indicates that your continuously aggressive attitude towards other editors is why you have an interaction ban, not because you're some poor victim who got played by a gang of sock puppets. I don’t see why anyone should really care if I’m ibanned from inactive and blocked accounts I don't think you should be given any reward for violating your interaction ban and telling people to fuck off. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC) @Sennen goroshi: If you were caught using socks. Why aren't you banned? GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC) I haven't used sock accounts, I stopped logging in for a while and just edited with an IP, however there was no suggestion that I was doing so for the purposes of block evasion, multiple voting, topic ban evasion, etc. The more important question is, why would you consider me editing with an IP almost a decade ago to be relevant in the slightest to this ANI report? It's not as if people bring up the fact that you were indef banned by the arbitration committee in every discussion that you contribute towards. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) You haven’t even explained why you followed me here. Or why you want me ibanned from dead accounts you couldn’t possibly have any connection to. Could they? Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC) You haven’t even explained why you followed me here. My apologies, I wasn't aware that I was under any obligation to explain why I'm contributing to a public discussion. Also, for the last decade it's been hard to visit ANI without seeing you involved in yet another fight with someone. All it takes is to search for your user name in ANI to see exactly how much you go looking for a fight on a very regular basis. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC) (A side note) Will you PLEASE stop reverting my corrections on your failure to follow WP:INDENT? You continuation to disregard the essay is quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC) WP:INDENT is merely an essay and more importantly I don't consider my comments to be hard to read. I do however see you editing my comments as a deliberate attempt to provoke me into some form of argument. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Well, I'm leaving this discussion. It's obvious to me, you're being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. I just can't be bothered. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Actually, leaving the discussion seems like the mature choice in regards to such a minor issue. I don't agree with you regarding indentation, but for the sake of avoiding an argument, I will self-revert. I can't be bothered either. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC) I think all of this bickering over tangents will become moot if I can be allowed to submit the sock puppet investigating regarding Spacecowboy420. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC) You want to submit a SPI for an editor who stopped editing over a year ago? Are you saying they are still editing but under a new account, but are not connected to some other account because otherwise I don't see the point. (If you believe they are connected to 72bikers, then I see no point since 72bikers has been established as a sock as HughD. And as said, Spacecowboy420 has not edited in over a year. So fairly sure they will be seen as stale. I don't think I'm alone in this since if you look at the HughD SPI you'll see people saying it was pointless to report editors who hadn't edited in over a month, yet alone a year.) In any case, obviously CU is out so I guess you have excellent behavioural evidence. Whatever, if you really want to, I'm not going to oppose. Arguably it could fall under WP:BANEX if you have a real case but don't quote me on that. Note, I'm also not going to oppose any block of you if an admin feels that the SPI was a pointless waste of time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC) You can’t make a clean start while under sanctions. If I quit editing, created a new account, and proceeded to battle with those I was banned from interacting with, that would not be OK, even if I hadn’t edited with my old account in a year. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC) WTF does clean start have to do with anything? No one said anything whatsoever to do with a clean start until you brought it up. My point was that if Spacecowboy420 was connected to 72biker, it was a complete and utter waste of time to connect the 2 in an SPI, since Spacecowboy420 stopped editing and we already knew 72bikers was socking, in fact they were connected to HughD another prolific sockpuppeteer. The only reason to open a SPI on Spacecowboy420 would be if you believed they were not HughD/72bikers but some other editor who is still editing and was not a known sock puppeteer. And you would need strong behavioural evidence, since it's well past 3 months for CU data. If you believed they were Sennen Goroshi and you had sufficient evidence to open an SPI, you should have said that, or at least said that you believed they were still editing as some other editor unconnected to 72bikers/HughD and not a known sock. Note that if you believed they were Sennen Goroshi and had sufficient evidence, it seems clear that BANEX would apply since Spacecowboy420 is clearly violating their iban in that case. Bringing up random crap like clean starts just confuses the hell out of everyone. We have no idea what you're thinking when you don't tell us, and this case was confusing enough with all the mention of HughD only for some other sockpuppeteer to allegedly be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I'm even more confused about the clean start business now. From below, I see Sennen goroshi has actually had an account since 2007. So there is no way anyone could think Sennen goroshi was a clean start of Spacecowboy420. If Sennen goroshi had attempted to cleanstart as Spacecowboy420, well that would be quite wrong. But concentrating on the "clean start" aspect is just confusing if it had been abandoned. Sennen goroshi was commenting here without making it clear they were the person ibanned from you as Spacecowboy420, which frankly is much more disturbing than the inappropriateness of their abandoned alleged clean start attempt. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of this?

I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would bother asking for ibans to be lifted against accounts that no longer edit. How is there going to be any interaction?

I'm the only other active account, and this thing was launched here without bothering to inform me. I'm forced to assume that the intention was to unilaterally lift the iban without my input. Another editor drew my attention to the discussion, and for that, thanks again.

I want nothing to do with this guy. I want the interaction ban to continue so long as the sort of behaviour that led to its imposition continues. I'm not seeing much evidence that spots have been changed. --Pete (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The ban between us should remain in place. I've said several times I'm not asking for that to be lifted, and I don't understand why anyone would keep raising the issue. Maybe that fact alone is a good reason to ban interaction between us? We're all in agreement. Let's continue to have nothing to do with one another! Let it be so decreed, now and forever! Really. I don't know what I have to say; regardless of what I say, multiple admins have made it clear that they too want the iban between us to remain. You're winning. You're getting what you want. Take the win! How much more reassurance do you need? You have nothing to worry about. This has nothing to do with you. Knowing all that I can't figure out why you would even care about my interactions with inactive accounts that have nothing to do with you, other then out of spite. I don't know. It doesn't matter. We won't be interacting.

Another account, with no connection at all to Skyring, is violating the iban with a sockpuppet. That's all. Nothing to do with Skyring; as far as Skyring is concerned, the status quo is unchanged and will forever remain. Peace. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please (whoever can do it) remove the Ibans between DB & the dormant accounts-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Withdrawn As far as I'm concerned, Sennen goroshi has admitted I was right all along, and Spacecowboy420 is a sock, and who knows how many others. It's proven as far as I'm concerned, SPI investigation or not. I was right that he was relocating between Tokyo and Manila, and the IP addresses of these distant locations (and others) protected them. Excluding Skyring (peace! Go in peace.), they were a pack of socks all along. Whether the iban is kept or lifted is of no consequence at this point. I'm certain there will be future Sennen goroshi sockpuppets following me around, trolling List of fastest production motorcycles or Dodge Tomahawk, but we've seen the upper bound of how clever this guy is, and it's not all that clever. Should be easy to swat them away as they pop up. Thanks for everyone's time. I tried to prevent all this but I understand why you all didn't believe me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• For the record: Based on this admission and serious outing committed by them against Dennis, I'm going to do some follow-up on the sockpuppetry, at least to document this as an LTA. I'd like to hear from anyone else on whether this should be escalated e.g. formal community ban of Spacecowboy420/Sennen goroshi. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not able to see it but any outing is disgusting, no matter what lead up to it. If you believe there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Sennen goroshi is Spacecowboy420, then I would encourage you to establish a formal connection. From what Guy has said, I don't think this is accepted yet. Since it seems this is established via edits which have been deleted, I would suggest you do so before any cban proposal as otherwise those of us who aren't admins will have no real evidence of a connection. And it would probably be better if you do so, since frankly Dennis Bratland's style of commenting just seems to cause confusion and annoyance.

  BTW, I'm not sure what "this admission" means. I see no admission there of sockpuppetry. Sennen goroshi seems to be just saying their account is 12 years old as if that somehow means we shouldn't block them which is IMO dumb but a lot of people say things like that. Heck even people defending a person mention how old their age is. The fact that they initially said 10 instead of 12 doesn't seem establish they have been socking, since frankly probably quite a lot of editors who have only edited under one account don't quite remember exactly when they made their account. Especially if they were editing with IPs before they made an account.

  And also, people often get simple maths wrong even if they do remember when they started editing. I mean heck, it's hardly uncommon for someone to get their age wrong even though they know their birth year and the current year although admittedly that's often only 1 year out. I

  t definitely doesn't seem to establish any connection to Spacecowboy420, since that account was only made in 2015 so they can't have been thinking of that account by mistake.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to blame me for your confusion. You're looking right at a diff with a loud, repeated, mocking, gloating admission of sockpuppetry, and saying "I see no admission there of sockpuppetry". You're skeptical of the connection between the accounts, but have you looked at the edits? The interaction analyzer? Their history? [7][8]? Do you see how specific the similarities are? What you've been posting here doesn't make sense unless you're not actually reading the diffs and other evidence being supplied. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, I see what Dennis is saying and agree. Goroshi does seem to fit the pattern of behavior for this sockpuppeteer. Moreover, he appears to a) gloat about being as such, b) is exceptionally uncivil, and c) appears not only to have no remorse, but has stated he intends to continue. Based on his own admission, I request he be blocked immediately with an SPI expedited. This is particularly egregious behavior that needs to stop now. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC) (***UPDATE: USER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BLOCKED ***)

Requesting ECP of Dennis's talk page to prevent interactions like this Buffs (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Has my support for an investigation as well as protection of Dennis's talk page. He shouldn't have to put up with this garbage. Buffs (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Appeal of restrictions on BrandonXLF (continued)

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

---

The previous discussion was archived prematurely, it is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive315#Appeal_of_restrictions. My points from the previous discussion:

I'd like to appeal my editing restrictions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#BrandonXLF. I haven't engaged in an edit war or performed any disruptive editing (as fa as I'm aware) since the restrictions were implemented. I have used edit summaries a lot more lately and I have decreased the number of edits I made per page. I have found Special:TemplateSandbox to be really helpful to reduce my number of edits per page when preview decides to now work. I haven't broken the restrictions and it's been over 6 months. I plan to make minor changes to templates (revert vandalism, add listings, fix minor errors) and to expand documentation (and to fix vandalism in documentation). I may create templates with the approval of other editors, but I do not intend on doing this immediately and I will only do it when the template/module is definitely useful for the encyclopedia.
— User:BrandonXLF

And then I added (please see the previous discussion for context):

I don't intend on touching well established templates, and if I do, I would use the talk page first. Maybe at some point I would request to update Template:Infobox chemical and to stop using Template:Chembox, but this seems unlikely as I would first need to find a reason why the infobox is better and I would have to discuss the changes, which will likely result in nothing happening as it has done before. I think most of the disruption was due to me not using sandboxes, which I now do and will continue to. I was mostly thinking of just the minor edits I have to do when the I see the odd piece of vandalism here or there or I need to update the navbox. I also wanted to work mostly in doc for now because there are a lot of templates to little to no documentation. I was also thinking about making Template:historical affliation with the code at User:BrandonXLF/A as requested by another user (User_talk:WikiWarrior9919#Template:Historical_affiliations), but one still needs a lot of work. When done, it would be used on something like 290 pages, so a lot more work is needed for it to work on all the pages. I thought a module like Module:Sandbox/BrandonXLF/1 would be useful, but I would first need to find a few situations were it would be useful. Same with Module:Sandbox/BrandonXLF/2, but I seems very unlikely that I will create a module because there are other modules that have similar functionality and there's Module:List already. A page where I would expand the documentation would be Template:Infobox order maybe because it currently doesn't have any templateData.
— User:BrandonXLF

Some examples of edit request I made as requested in the previous discussion: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].

I do intend on continuing to use talk pages to discuss changes before I make them and to continue to use the sandbox. – BrandonXLF (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: Best practice is to unarchived the post by removing it from the archive and adding it back here, maybe with a donotarchive tag so it doesn't happen until it is closed. This way people can easily see the previous discussion. I'd do it myself but am on mobile at the moment. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I thought archived discussions are immutable as it says at WP:ARCHIVE.– BrandonXLF (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For old archives, yeah, but the discussion was archived two days ago. At the village pump it's not uncommon for discussions that need closing but were archived prematurely to be (promptly) re-added to the pump with a donotarchive tag until it is closed. Maybe norms differ at AN. It's probably no big deal either way; just saves people a click. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is accepted in most places when something is prematurely archived. Especially in the case of manual archiving, it makes no sense that it isn't possible to dispute the archiving and reverse it. But in any case, even if you don't remove the archiving, you can copy the contents back to the page and mention you did so. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support this, the main issue with bans is that they do not ensure no ways of recidivism, but BrandonXLF hasn't been sanctioned since for trespassing their ban, which is a good outcome. Furthermore, while their total activity might have dropped, it has been fairly consistent, so nothing much of an issue there as well (but again a majority of their contributions are in userspace). I say, it's time to loosen the WP:ROPE. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• As stated before I have no real opinion about this request, and I think that qedk's comment regarding recidivism is valid. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support repeal The ban can always be re-imposed if there's a problem. Miniapolis 23:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support repeal I've had some interactions with Brandon when working on templates and have gotten a good impression of their work. I find their appeal convincing and think giving them another chance would be a good call. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Meatpuppetry across the Michael Jackson articles

Moved this here after this (followup comment here).

I don't know where to address this, but it needs to be addressed because it's affecting our Wikipedia articles in detrimental ways. Like I stated on Laser brain's talk page, there have been meatpuppetry issues when it comes to Jackson fans at the Jackson articles. As new accounts, they show up to the same articles, including new articles that they could not have known about unless told about them offline, show very little interest in editing non-Jackson articles (or if they do, it's to look less like WP:Single-purpose accounts), turn their user page (or user page and talk page) blue as to attract less attention, and then they peddle their POVs. Sometimes they turn their user page blue first, including with the typical sockpuppet use of a dot or series of dots to turn their user page blue or with some sentence. They then blank their user page on the same day, or a week, month, or few months later. Sometimes they start a sandbox immediately. The way they work is a coordinated effort (which is no surprise, going by what sources like this The New York Times source and this The Daily Beast source have reported on), supporting one another to influence discussions (including when one of them took me to ANI). This is an obvious problem because if I, for example, start an RfC at Talk:Michael Jackson, it will mainly consist of these new accounts weighing in, twisting our policies and guidelines to suit their personal feelings with regard to Jackson. This all started with the pending release of Leaving Neverland (a controversial documentary about child sexual abuse) and increased when it was released. For anyone familiar with WP:Student editors, these accounts are similar to student editors, in that they show up out of nowhere with one goal (in this case, to support Jackson/his legacy), edit alike, support one another, and seem coached. They will already be aware of some rules, such as WP:Assume good faith (knowing this one apparently because they are already aware that they will be considered or called a sock or a meatpuppet). I would link to certain accounts here (without pinging them) as examples of their behavior so that editors will see what I mean, but this isn't a WP:SPI. And they would simply cry "assume good faith" anyway. But linking to the discussions here and pointing to the talk page history of the Michael Jackson article is enough to see some of the accounts I mean.

As seen in this ANI thread, CheckUser Berean Hunter has previously looked into possible sockpuppetry regarding the Jackson fan editors. While no sockpuppetry has yet been identified, the meatpuppetry is obvious. I've noted obvious meatpuppets to Berean Hunter via email. And as seen here and here, meatpuppetry and gaming the system was addressed by JBW, who I contacted via email about this. As seen in those discussions involving JBW and via the aforementioned link pointing to Laser brain's talk page, these editors are not above gaming the system to get extended confirmed status. Popcornduff has also seen the meatpuppetry. This new editor has also seen it, and complained to NinjaRobotPirate about it. And Popcornduff and editors such as Excelse, Snow Rise and myself have seen issues with articles like "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson." Note that I'm not linking to that article; this is because it will bring the creator -- a Jackson fan who has demonstrated POV issues with regard to Jackson -- to this talk page. And then meatpuppets may follow. I'm not sure what to do. WP:Meatpuppetry does state, "A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.'" But can anything be done about this? Will this need WP:Arbitration, like Gamergate did with regard to socks and meatpuppets? I think it likely will. The meatpuppets outnumber non-Jackson fans such as myself trying to keep fan-skewed edits out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Not counting bots, 107 registered users have posted on Talk:Michael Jackson in 2019 up to now. Of the 107 users, 23 accounts were created in 2019. Their total edit counts are:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 10, 24, 27, 48, 73, 81, 91, 92, 325

The first nine of those made a single comment at the talk page, but no other edit. It's clear there is a problem at the Michael Jackson pages but the solution is hard to see. Some kind of discretionary sanctions might be useful but the community is very weak at dealing with "good faith" comments by obvious meatbots. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, because I have no experience in investigating sockpuppets and meatpuppets, but I will say this: the Michael Jackson articles are a constant battleground of seemingly inexperienced editors pushing POV views. I would describe them as something of a nightmare in that regard. And unlike other areas I've worked on in my ten-ish years of Wikipedia, they don't seem to go away. I always assumed they were co-ordinating in some way on a Discord server or something. Popcornduff (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I might be missing something (probably am), but how are these meatpuppets getting round the ECP? I mean, if they're gaming the system to artificially inflate their edit counts then it's legitimate to bust them back to confirmed user status at the minimum. ——SN54129 11:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, lots of Jackson-related articles, such as Leaving Neverland and Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, have no page protection, for a start... Popcornduff (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    • True dat. Also, see a recent discussion; this thread answers my question. ——SN54129 11:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• If specific Jackson related articles need protection, then that can be given if diffs are presented to show a pattern of problematic behaviour to the articles. I wouldn't consider comments on a talkpage to be sufficient reason for protection of the article, though offensive or troubling remarks made by a user on a talkpage may be reason to sanction that user. I have indefinitely semi-protected Leaving Neverland. It has been protected for short periods five times this year, and inappropriate edits by IP and new editors are still occuring frequently. I've not looked at the other Jackson articles, and won't have time until later this evening. SilkTork (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is quite the spectacle! Flyer22_Reborn has themself admitted to have seen "POV-pushing from both sides". But in this complaint, they're putting all emphasis on supposed pro-Jackson meat puppets.

In a developing discussion [18], user scope_creep has shown a clear conflict of interest and POV-pushing: "He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse. He may be very very popular as a cultural icon, but as these fans see their own children grow up, it will finally bring it home and that is when it will change."

User popcorndruff once wrote: "the biased language in this article is beginning to cause me physical pain"[19].

Just a month ago, an anti-MJ canvassing plot (to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary") was uncovered (evidence and all) [20].

This article alleges that Harvey Weinstein allegedly paid writers to write gossip items about Jackson.

As for Jude1313, they were blocked for edit-warring (four reverts within 24 hours). They made 47 edits in a row to the Evan Chandler article without discussing even one of them on its Talk page, and they proceeded to attack other editors using a lot caps and talking back in a very puerile manner. They also repeatedly blanked their talk page in a very short time frame.

In this conversation [21], user Partytemple called out Flyer22_Reborn for edit warring without good reason. Flyer22_Reborn then proceeded to lash out at several editors she perceived as Jackson fans, calling them "rabid", falsely accusing them of using the talk page as a forum, of possibly being sockpuppets, etc. User SNUGGUMS then stated that Flyer22_Reborn's "rabid Jackson fan" remark was unwarranted, but they once more made the same impertinent remark.

In this discussion [22], Flyer22_Reborn made mention of "many rabid Jackson fans". I composed a pertinent response to her comment, and she then accused me of "rabidness", completely ignoring my quote of Collins Dictionary: You can use rabid to describe someone who has very strong and unreasonable opinions or beliefs about a subject, especially in politics.

There was nothing unreasonable or fanatical in my response, but this is how they try to discredit editors with whom they disagree. This very discussion by Flyer22_Reborn appears to me as an attempt to exercise undue control on certain Wiki articles and silence any voice they do not agree with. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, and I very rarely ever edited any MJ-related article until the release of Leaving Neverland ; the amount of activity and conflicts on MJ-related articles has brought my attention, and many of the users Flyer22_Reborn constantly attacks have only been trying to maintain some balance and accuracy in said articles.

Also, they've admitted to trying to conceal this notification from other editors they perceive as "fans". I'm pinging Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake and Zusammenprall to this discussion. Israell (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

...which really doesn't help your case at all. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake was blocked yesterday as a confirmed sock of Awardmaniac. And Zusammenprall is currently blocked although that is still under discussion. Israell, you state above that scope_creep has a clear conflict of interest. Please elaborate because it isn't borne out in what you have presented. I'm of the current opinion that you don't have a good idea of what conflict of interest means.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above comment by Israell, a Jackson fan, is partly what I'm talking about when it comes to Jackson fans and them showing up to discussions like this one. Israell has assisted and defended these meatpuppets, just like now. Expect others, including perhaps the original creator of the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article, to show up here. This is why I didn't link to that article, although now it's linked above. But as for how Israell found this thread, Israell likely followed Popcorndruff here. Anyway, take note that every admin I have contacted about this case has been clear that meatpuppetry is going on. Now we have admin Johnuniq noting it above as well. So why is Israell defending these meatpuppets and bringing up old disputes involving me while mischaracterizing things such as "Partytemple called out Flyer22_Reborn for edit warring without good reason."? Israell mentions SNUGGUMS, but SNUGGUMS has been clear that I've, for the most part, acted appropriately at these articles. This clearly is not about me "try[ing] to discredit editors with whom [I] disagree." This clearly is not about this discussion being "an attempt to exercise undue control on certain Wiki articles and silence any voice they [I] agree with." It's about what Popcorndruff and others who have seen the problems have stated. And on that note, Berean Hunter recently uncovered this and this sock with regard to the Jackson articles. The "balance" these socks and meatpuppets have been "trying to maintain" is not the balance that Wikipedia wants. WP:NPOV and WP:Advocacy are clear. I should also note that it was brought to my attention these meatpuppets are likely coming from Reddit. For example, Reddit has a #JusticeForMJ hashtag active.

Berean Hunter Flyer22 Reborn Hey, I'm quite active on reddit and I have never encountered any hashtag of the sorts. Reddit isn't really a place for hashtags - maybe I visit the wrong part of Reddit. Are you talking about Twitter? There are as many anti MJ hashtags active as pro MJ hashtags. The anti Michael Jackson community is quite avid. I invite you to visit the LeavingNeverlandHBO subreddit. I myself joined reddit after joining wikipedia by the way. Zusammenprall (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for looking into this. Other Jackson articles that need semi-protection are the following: Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, Wade Robson, Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson's Boys. Popcorndruff can probably name some more. Pinging admin Yamla, who has dealt with some problematic editing issues concerning the Jackson articles and recently stated that they have "placed many of the articles targeted by Awardmaniac under extended-confirmed protection." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for linking the article - was trying to be helpful and didn't think it through. Popcornduff (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why does linking the article matter? ——SN54129 16:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The creator gets pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know those two users were blocked. Once again, scope_creed wrote: "He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse. He may be very very popular as a cultural icon, but as these fans see their own children grow up, it will finally bring it home and that is when it will change." They've made a very clear accusation, made it very clear they fully believe Jackson to be guilty when Jackson was never found guilty of any wrongdoing. Right there, it shows bias. I remember how user hatethejess was blocked for having a conflict of interest. Well, scope_creed has demonstrated the opposite conflict of interest.

If any supposedly pro-MJ editor used the language scope_creepused, Flyer and popcorndruff would yell at them, call them rabid and warn them. I am pinging Isaacsorry and TrackerMercurial136. Israell (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell why was I mentioned in this? Isaacsorry (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn... Once again... I've been on Wiki for 13 years! It's only after the release of LN that I've started to pay more attention to MJ-related articles, and I've explained why above. My being a fan is your assumption, and it's completely irrelevant. Besides, it is common for Wiki editors to edit articles for which they have competency. For instance, a viewer of soap operas is more apt to edit soap articles, make sure the information is accurate (storylines, characters, actors, head writers, executive producers, etc.), than somebody who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in soaps. I've only been honest here, yet you constantly point fingers, accuse plenty of editors you do not agree with of meat puppetry, etc. Israell (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And no, I did not follow Popcorndruff here... News flash! After 13 years, I know my way around Wiki! All you and popcorndruff do is assume, assume, assume (they must come from Reddit, they must come from Discord servers, etc.). You've conveniently ignored the blatant anti-MJ canvassing plot that was uncovered just last month! Those people made very clear their intention was to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary". Jude1313 was an obvious meatpuppet and was blocked for that. Israell (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: You may have been on Wikipedia for 13 year but it is clear as day that your a fan and this is evidenced by the comments you have made. You don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Instead your kicking up a stink about my comments. It is worth noting that talk pages are for having frank discussions in a free and open manner within reason. You have also stated that I have a COI. I really don't. I don't listen to Jackson's music, never been a fan. You have also stated I have a POV. I don't. WP:POV is specific to the article. I don't plan to write any of the article, at any time. I was requested to comment on the talk page. I still believe the film should be mentioned in the lede.scope_creep^Talk 17:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep:I fail to see how liking the music should be relevant in any way. Michael jackson was one of the biggest pop artists in history. The word 'pop' stands for popular music. As in: Most people will like this music. Discounting everyone who enjoys the music of Michael Jackson is discounting half of humanity. You say you are not a fan as if this is something to be proud of in this context. But One could construe that as suspicious as well. Why the interest? You might be part of the just as avid Michael Jackson hate community. Zusammenprall (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell, I'm not engaging you further on your mischaracterizations and "shifting the attention to Flyer" nonsense that you and the meatpuppets try time and time again, despite noticeboards such as the WP:Original research noticeboard making it clear that I'm in the right when it comes to article content, and admins agreeing that meatpuppetry is going on. Given this thread that Serial Number 54129 and I linked to, pinging Isaacsorry doesn't help your case either. And pinging new account TrackerMercurial136? Sighs. Also, you claiming that you just happened to find this thread is extremely disingenuous. So is your commentary that you "being a fan is [my] assumption." Your contribution history (which documents you editing a few times every year, and that the vast majority of your editing took place in 2007) shows what you focus on and your editing patterns. And yet you want us to believe that you simply decided to see what was going on at WP:AN today and found this thread about Jackson fans and meatpuppetry? Good grief. No, Jude1313 is not some obvious meatpuppet and was not blocked for that. Whatever you and the meatpuppets think you are going to accomplish by "Flyer and Popcornduff are bad" posts is misguided. Well, unless it's to derail this thread, which I won't further contribute to by replying to you, the usual suspects, or the meatpuppets. It won't change the fact that the meatpuppetry is evident and that a number of these articles need semi-protection. Meatpuppets showing up here will just further prove my case, like TruthGuardians's comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, speculative bullying. There are some who truly believe that they are god’s gift to WP, some sort of king or king. Truth is, they are only a bully wrapped in experience. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

So you just happened to find this thread as well. Got it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn, It is common for Wiki editors to monitor noticeboards in times of conflict. The more you bully, the more you expose yourself. Israell (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Last reply to you in this thread you've sought to derail: You've exposed yourself plenty here in this section. Your "we just showed up because we've been monitoring AN all this time" explanation doesn't fly. And it especially doesn't fly if speaking of recent conflict. What recent conflict, other than this thread? Oh, yes, I've been such a problem in this recent discussion that you and the meatpuppets just recently decided to watch AN. No. I wonder what your excuse would have been if the thread had remained at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I will say that there are some genuine concerns here, but I will also say that it just seems like a bunch of bullies protecting what they deem as their territory when it’s not, it is the people’s territory. A few months ago I was a new editor and was a victim of bullying by Flyer22 and other wiki users that they flock around in packs with. They cry “Jackson fans” this, and “Jackson fans” that, when in reality there is no rule that says “Jackson fans” can’t edit Wikipedia. In fact, as long as they remain balance, are here for more than just one purpose, and are following guidelines, they can absolutely Choose what they are subject matter experts in without being bullied and harassed by more experienced users. These same users say absolutely nothing when pedophile fantasists attempt to hijack Jackson’s pages and push their sick, unsupported POV and using anti-jackson sites like MJFacts as their sources. I don’t have an opinion on the sock puppetry stuff being mentioned here, but do believe that the guideline should be expanded to include sock puppetry bullying. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

scope_creed, you're making false assumptions here, assuming bad faith and obviously cannot read, so I'll repeat myself. I've been on Wiki for 13 years and have edited different sorts of articles. Obviously, I'm here to build an encyclopedia. It's only AFTER the release of LN that I've started to pay more attention to MJ-related articles, and I've explained why above. Understood or you need a translator? Yes, you do have a POV, and you've made it very clear. You've very clearly stated that you believe MJ to be guilty, and that may cloud your judgement in votes, etc. Pot. Kettle. Israell (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn has admittedly seen TruthGuardians' reply above, a pertinent, sensical, well-crafted reply but she chose to completely dismiss it, ignore all of his arguments, assuming bad faith, calling him a "meatpuppet". Seriously... I rest my case. Israell (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't you tell the meatpuppets to Beat It....? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think they wanna be startin' somethin'.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm unblocking Zusammenprall to participate in this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a blatant exaggeration in this complaint. I resent Flyer22_Reborn for unduly and falsely accusing TruthGuardians, Partytemple and others of meatpuppetry when they (Flyer22_Reborn) and others may very well have engaged in the very behaviour they condemn. See how they give Jude1313 a full pass! Once again, that user just very recently made 47 edits in a row to the Evan Chandler article without discussing even one of them on its Talk page, and they proceeded to attack other editors using a lot caps and talking back in a very puerile manner. They also repeatedly blanked their talk page in a very short time frame, but Flyer22_Reborn doesn't care because Jude1313 is not "a rabid MJ fan."

Lugnuts, I hope you're referring to those meatpuppets that clearly stated their intent to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary". Israell (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to also say that I am not against the proposed semi-protections, though I do believe the request is exaggerated. I am, however, opposed to the tribal bullying of every new user coming to post on the topic. I admittedly don’t know if this is the correct time, place, or admin to bring this topic up to, but I am researching my options at this point in time. Just at a quick glance I have discovered 33 examples of this bullying from 2 particular users as far back as only 3 months. Something needs to be done about this. It’s always the same 2-3 users!TruthGuardians (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I need to chime in on the sock puppet issue of which I was accused. Yes it is correct that I created five month ago my first wikipedia account which I then abandoned. But I did this solely to protect my privacy and to protect me from potential harassment NOT to manipulate or vandalise - my edit history should make this clear. The name of my first acc was linked to another platform on which a bunch of trolls are gunning for me. I'm a moderator of a plattform about a quite controversial subject.

That is the sole reason I abandoned my first account. A privacy concern regarding the name. The reason why I had to abandon my second account too is - to be quite frank - stupidity on my part. I accidentally linked my second account to my first. - I'm a Wikipedia newby and attempted to make an 'about me' page but accidentally linked this account again to my old name. So moved on and I created my current account in good faith.

My intent was at no time vandalism or the manipulation of votes. In fact: I never participated in any vote I'm aware of. When I abandoned one account I haven't used it ever again to push certain agendas. My edits so far were - in my opinion - of high quality and as good as never reversed or overly controversial. When someone corrected me on something I accepted it.

I may be guilty of not familiarising myself with the rules before joining a plattform. But even after reading parts of the rules now, I still maintain I never did sock puppetry. I simply had to change accounts to protect my privacy and I messed up doing that. Looking back, knowing what I know now, there of course would have been better ways to go about it. I just didn't know. Zusammenprall (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There you go! I hope you'll accept Zusammenprall's good faith and sincere, detailed explanations. Israell (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't really been involved with the Michael Jackson articles except a tangentially related AfD; but now with the evidence and testimony given above, there is clearly POV pushing and meatpuppetry going on by the 'Jackson fan' side. This sort of thing has even been reported on in the media as linked at the top - while that is specifically about social media outlets, it would be extremely naive not to think the same thing is being done on Wikipedia. I think it would be appropriate for many of these articles to be semi-protected or even extended-confirmed protected by the admins in view of the outside campaigns going on in this regard, and the kind of editing it is resulting in. As for Jude1313, I don't see anyone giving him a "free pass" - quite the opposite. And to be clear, blanking his talk page, annoying as that is, isn't the same thing as userspace behavior so as not to seem obviously new, like creating nearly-blank user pages. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I answered one edit request and got three different editors telling me I'm wrong (one of whom was a sockpuppet, two simply siding with the sockpuppet) and I had to repeatedly answer and explain, which is goddamned impossible when their mind is made up. I don't have an opinion as such, but seeing the extent of the issue, I do believe a general sanction should be applied to the Michael Jackson topic area, 30/500, 1RR and the likes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pinging Partytemple. Israell (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that the Partytemple account, which has been absent for months, showed back up just in time for Israell's ping. The Partytemple account showed back up at 01:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC). And then Israell made the ping at 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC). Great. Here comes more "Flyer22 and/or Flyer and Popcornduff are so bad" commentary. More mischaracterizations, etc., etc., etc., as if it's going to change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles need semi-protection/extended-confirmed protection. But rant away. One has to ask why Israell so vehemently opposes these articles being semi-protected/having extended-confirmed protection and/or some other restriction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeout. Didn't you ping users from the talk page? What is the difference between you doing and plausibly getting a response, or someone else doing the same damn thing? I get emails when I am pinged, and I check my email often! I dont know about PartyTemple's scenario, but I definitely cant wait until I take a hihatus and comeback to attacks and accusations from you. Please hence my satire. I'm starting to conclude that WP is full of editors that are 3 weeks out of high school. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Did I ping anyone a few minutes after they had just come back after months away? No. Partytemple showed back up first and then was pinged. Another coincidence, I take it? I see. The way you and Israell insult people's intelligence is baffling, as if we were just born yesterday. Like I stated, you, Israell and Partytemple can rant away. Doesn't change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles need semi-protection/extended-confirmed protection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesnt matter when they were pinged or even when the person was pinged responds to that ping. That proves absolutely nothing. The way you bully EVERY SINGLE peron that post to Michael Jackson's page is baffling. You should be blocked from editing any of his pages based on your provably bullying history, sort of like your previous 4 blocks. You think its your terriotory. It's not. You think you are queen of Wiki. You're not. You need to seriously get over yourself and your alleged intelligence being insulted. I dont care when you were born, I know when you act like you were though. In any event, I agree with semi-protections because of users like Jude1313 and the random IP edits that vandalize the pages, I dont oppose that to be honest. I also agree that it doesn't change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles. I just believe that you want it for selfish reasons to prevent you and your kind from falling in the minority since for so long you have managed to bully your way through controversial edits about Jackson.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter? Of course it matters. The only people it doesn't matter to are those wanting others to play dumb. And my four previous blocks? As my block log is clear about, I was cleared of sockpuppetry. One of the CUs who blocked me unblocked me after investigating. I was blocked once to protect my account, and the other was an unnecessary block that was reversed. There are admins like NeilN, who also has a faulty block log. And? The "Flyer is bad" people (who are always problematic editors sour about me challenging their problematic editing) always cite my block log like it proves their case about me. All it proves is a lack of reading comprehension. As for the rest, it's more of the same from you. Time to ignore you in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Still the same speclative bullying that I come to expect from my first day even meeting you. By the way, before I even made my first Jackson article edit, all I did was comment on a talk page and was subjected to your cyberbullying. My problem isnt with your sockpuppetry accusations, I read your page and I believe you, it isn't your sometime evident anti-Jackson POV pushes and editor association, everyone is entitltled to their way of thinking and who the hang out with, my ONLY problem is with your lack of warm welcomes, softskills, WP-goodfaith, wiki-etiquette, and most of all, wiki-bullying. Anyway, Ill allow you peace under your tinfoil hat. In the meantime, I'm going to call the Jackson estate to see what they want my next edit to be.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all, and I resent you for your constant accusations. You are the one thinking other editors are too dumb to know their way around Wiki. Israell (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I actually pinged Partytemple at 00:55 on the Michael Jackson Talk page [23] before Partytemple showed up at 01:20, which defeats Flyer22 Reborn's accusation. ]. I pinged him because he was until very recently heavily involved in Michael Jackson-related discussions and articles, made pertinent contributions, and his consensus (and that of other editors) is needed. I'll remind you that Flyer22 Reborn has also pinged a string of editors (a total of 16) for consensus on that same talk page. Moxy, Berean Hunter. Israell (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell's earlier ping defeats my statement? Nope. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Israell (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

And, for others' knowledge, the pinging on that talk page doesn't compare. The pinging Israell is talking about has Israell pinging a string of editors who agree with Israell, whereas this pinging by me is me pinging a variety editors from both sides of two different debates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Not quite! Israell (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

To others, regarding the "Not quite!" above, look at that post on that talk page. See what is stated. Doesn't compare whatsoever. This is what I mean about the disingenuous comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed this talk after commenting on the talk page how odd it is the article always has new editors all on one side of the debate without willingness to compromise. On the behavior at the talk....most of us will see it as a somewhat heated but nothing actionable. Think may be best to invite experienced editors to the talk page....rfc or whatever.--Moxy 🍁 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The real questions should be as follows: Who are the sock puppets? Have they been exposed? What, if any, real damage have they caused? Does 1-2 bad Apples ruin it for everyone else? Are people just overreacting? People need to stop with the echo chambers, the tribal bullying, and possibly WP need to completely revamp who are admins, why they are admins, and allow complaint processies to have admins investigated for various reasons.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Enough w/ the conspiracy theories. It's enough! Partytemple has been a regular editor; isn't he allowed to take a lil' break from editing Wiki and partaking in discussions? Doesn't mean he hadn't been watching the pages, watching the discussions (no need to log in to view them). Moxy, there have been editors on all sides of the debate, and maybe those new editors you're referring to have the ability to think for themselves! Israell (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

What is needed is experienced editors that are familiar with this type of situation is what is being said. As has been demonstrated over and over again at the article is vote staking does not help.--Moxy 🍁 04:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I'll remind you that Flyer22 Reborn has also pinged a string of editors (a total of 16) for consensus on that same talk page. Israell (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I got pinged by Flyer22, so I'm apparently one of those 16. However, all my previous interaction with Flyer22 on the Jackson talk page (the only place I've interacted with her) consisted of fervent disagreement about practically everything, and I've written quite critically of Flyer22 in the past. In my view, Flyer22's pings were a good-faith and impartial effort to notify various previous highly active participants in the relevant discussions, and not an attempt to notify friends or people she agrees with, so it's not at all comparable to any possible meat puppetry among Jackson fans. --Tataral (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Great to see some experienced editors there now not matter wish way they are leaning..--Moxy 🍁 14:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence at all to these claims of bullying. It sounds to me a lot like the deflection that some editors do when on the losing side of disputes. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Israell: you're bludgeoning and overwhelming this AN thread with long repetitious posts. Where is the need to inform the community four times that you've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, etc? Please try to be concise and don't wear out readers and opponents. It's not true, as you profess to believe, that you need to repeat yourself ad nauseam because your opponent "obviously cannot read".[24] Such a contemptuous dismissal, together with contradictorily accusing Flyer of being "the one thinking other editors are too dumb to know their way around Wiki"[25] is far into trolling territory. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC).

I would add that such meatpuppetry can be counter-productive. I mentioned below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Boys (2nd nomination). If people hadn't gone on claiming that a source that clearly existed did not exist then we could have moved the discussion on to whether the sources, only one of which was substantial, demonstrate notability, when I might well have come down on the side of deletion. As it is I got so exasperated by the antics of the meatpuppets that I didn't wish to spend any time on the discussion apart from correcting blatant lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: community sanctions for Michael Jackson topics

Problems are evident even in this discussion. I propose that community sanctions be implemented in a manner similar to Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict. It would be desirable to start by drafting suitable wording before any !vote. Should sanctions include the following? Anything else?

1. Administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles related to Michael Jackson to prevent editing by IP editors or by accounts with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.
2. Administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on any talk page for the duration of an RfC related to the topic provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

Point 1 is on the theory that there may not be a need to pre-emptively prohibit edits by non-ECP users—instead, an admin could apply that remedy if there is reason to believe meatpuppetry has occurred. Bear in mind that it does not matter whether a particular editor is or is not a meatpuppet, what counts is whether they act in the way that a meatpuppet would—excessive contributions from such users is damaging.

Point 2 is likely to be controversial since many believe talk pages should be open to all, and discussion closers should not be swayed by me-too votes. However, I pointed out above that a significant number of accounts were created in 2019 with the obvious intention of promoting a fan-based POV in discussions on talk pages. Any thoughts on how to handle that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is to draft the wording—no !votes yet thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Minor nitpickings, ...less than 30 days tenure respectively... and ...meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry... --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks, I inserted "or sockpuppetry". However, I might be missing something but I don't see how "respectively" is useful. Is that to help with the clumsy "by IP editors or by accounts"? Does anyone have ideas on briefly cleaning that? Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Unfortunately no better wording, I believe you can remove to prevent editing by IP editors or by accounts with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, altogether. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a proposed set of sanctions taken to ArbCom and given their blessing, possibly as an extension of BLP (since many of those affected by the edits are still alive, and the fact that the nexus of the dispute is deceased is really standing in the way of fixing that). That way standard DS alerting and enforcement can be used. Otherwise we can simply RfC 30/500 protection and/or consensus required on this and other articles I reckon. Guy (help!) 12:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  GS has an identical alerting system (see {{Gs/alert}}). --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would oppose this. If someone will show me diffs of inappropriate editing on a Jackson related article I will look into it, as would any admin. I'm not comfortable, though, with the idea of preemptively protecting an article. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  It's not pre-emptive though, anything related to MJ is absolutely trainwrecked with a barrage of SPAs, most of who are not aware of policy and the ones aware engage in endless wikilawyering. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @SilkTork: What about the situation described in my "23 accounts were created in 2019" comment above? There is no bad edit to look at, just the fact that established editors have to debate issues relating to NPOV and DUE with a large stream of SPAs created specifically for the purpose of supporting one side of a disagreement. The idea was to only protect if considered necessary, not pre-emptively. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  "established editors have to debate issues". Nobody has to debate; people can chose to get involved in editorial discussions if they wish. As I understand it, part of the concerns here are over an editorial disagreement over inclusion of mention of the Leaving Nevermind documentary. Our protection policy says: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." The discussion as regards what weight to give the Leaving Nevermind documentary appears to be a valid content dispute with valid arguments on both sides. Applying semi-protection to keep out the newer editors in favour of less weight being given to that documentary is explicitly forbidden by policy. What is needed is someone to come here with actual diffs of inappropriate edits. I don't mean a list of articles, I mean actual diffs as evidence. Statements that someone has edited an article, but without showing us those actual edits, is not evidence of bad doing, but simply evidence of editing. Show us the concerning edits, and we can deal with the individuals. Show us the pattern of inappropriate edits by multiple new and/or IP editors to a particular article and we can semi-protect that article. There may well be some kind of coordinated plan to remove legitimate content from the Jackson articles, but this discussion so far is not showing that, and if this were brought to ArbCom without a) appropriate evidence of wrong-doing and b) more evidence of the community having attempted and failed to deal with it, then it would likely be rejected. SilkTork (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I know what the protection policy says—that's why a special sanction would be required for something different to cope with an unusual situation. I have participated in disputes with a stream of SPAs and it wastes a lot of time and energy, however I've never seen anything as bad as the SPAs in this case. It's not satisfactory to say that the established editors don't have to waste their time because they can leave the topic for the SPAs—that would solve the dispute but would not be good for content. Diffs would just show a new editor posting a good-faith comment to support the position of other SPAs so perhaps there is no solution. Arbcom has to follow a more bureaucratic path than a community discussion so I don't see them as being a fix. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  In this current situation, there is a discussion to remove mention of Leaving Neverland from the lead of Michael Jackson. Ask an uninvolved admin or Crat to look at the discussion when seven days have passed to close it one way or the other (I would close it but I took part in the previous discussion and gave my view). That seems an appropriate course of action, and doesn't involve a more lengthy process or involve more of the community than is required or enforce a restriction on unregistered editors who wish to edit those articles legitimately (which is a separate concern from persistent inappropriate editing of Jackson articles, which isn't the claim here, but which would legitimately prompt semi-protection - which I am willing to do if people bring to me some diffs). SilkTork (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  I am also prepared to sanction any editor who is making inappropriate edits to the Jackson article if diffs are supplied. Though I will not sanction an editor for voicing an opinion in the debate, unless such an opinion involves personal attacks or other inappropriate behaviour. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, there are a lot of POV edits that I could point to that show problems, including those documented at Talk:Leaving Neverland. See this section I started there about these edits I reverted. These edits, made by this SPA, consisted of the editor altering text away from what the sources state, ungrammatical wording, adding "allegedly" after every other word (when per WP:Claim, we should be careful with "allegedly" and "claim"), other POV wording, removing valid wikilinks, adding "citation needed" instead of Template:Citation needed and when the content it was added for wasn't unsourced. Here is another POV edit I reverted; this one was made to the Neverland Ranch article by the latest Awardmaniac sock. Awardmaniac will return, which is why Yamla stated that they have "placed many of the articles targeted by Awardmaniac under extended-confirmed protection." I only made the "See also" compromise I made there so that I wouldn't have to waste time on an obvious Jackson-oriented SPA. Is that article's quality better by having Leaving Neverland mentioned in the See also section as opposed to being in the article's text? And here at the Trial of Michael Jackson article, you can see me fixing WP:Editorializing/POV.

Debating with newbie editors whose sole purpose is to defend Jackson's legacy is a waste of time. They apply our rules inappropriately/inaccurately and are always about what they feel makes Jackson look best. And they can overwhelm discussions, as others (for example, The Blade of the Northern Lights) have noted of this very thread. And they can influence discussions. What is the point of starting RfCs at Talk:Michael Jackson, for example, when those RfCs are going to be dominated by editors who are only there to defend Jackson? If anyone is to note that some or most of the participants are SPAs, that person is likely to be pointed to WP:Assume good faith. In that case, the most the editor can probably do is add Template:Single-purpose account beside the SPA accounts per the WP:Meatpuppetry policy. Yes, RfC arguments should be based on strength of arguments, but we all know that it's not unheard of for RfCs to partly come down to head counts, especially if the one closing the discussion is not familiar with the topic. And these SPAs currently outnumber non-Jackson fans who keep fan-skewed edits out. The solution is certainly not to just put up with debating these SPAs just to maintain the neutrality and quality of the Jackson articles, or throwing our hands up and leaving the Jackson articles to them. And any notion that these SPAs may turn into legitimate editors whose focus is not primarily on protecting Jackson's legacy can be challenged by simply looking at the accounts that have been used for months to mainly or solely focus on protecting Jackson's legacy or celebrating his music accomplishments, whether sporadically or consistently. I don't consider disputes involving established editors vs. meatpuppets to be valid content disputes, especially when the meatpuppets are misapplying our policies and/or guidelines. Like WP:Meatpuppetry states, "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. [...] A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.' " And there is no doubt that meatpuppetry has been going on at the Jackson articles. I don't think we need to locate a specific off-Wikipedia thread or similar to prove that meatpuppetry is going on when it's evident that it is per my original post in this thread and Johnuniq's original post in this thread. Wikipedia often handles obvious meatpuppetry cases without locating the off-Wikipedia site pulling the meatpuppets in. And in this case, per the sources I've included (in my original post) about Jackson fans and how they coordinate, it's not like it's just one site. And Excelse pointed to off-Wikipedia canvassing anyway. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• If there is consensus, I would it applied to all large cultural icon articles where the talk page is heavily influenced by fans. I have seen fans at work in more than a few large cultural icon articles. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• I support Johnuniq's wording and the proposal. Community sanctions are definitely warranted, due to the already evident gaming the system by Jackson fanatics/fans; such behavior on the internet is so bad it has been reported on in the media. We are not a bureaucracy; we can do this as a community and without needing ArbCom to 'pass legislation'. Time to be proactive and not reactive. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• WP:RFAR. I tend to agree with JzG: this should be taken to ArbCom, with a request for standard discretionary sanctions. If such a case is accepted by the committee, the stricter rules for input at evidence and workshop pages would insure that everybody can be heard, and prevent the kind of bludgeoning and repetitiousness Israell has been subjecting this AN thread to. Meanwhile, do we really need an RfC to apply 30/500 protection to Michael Jackson-related pages? The normal rule for persistent disruption is that semiprotection should be tried first, and 30/500 can be used if semi turns out to be insufficient. Can't we simply follow those steps? Also, while protecting talkpages is best avoided if possible, off-wiki coordination is one of the situations that call for it. Johnuniq's striking list of edit counts by new editors who have edited Talk:Michael Jackson in 2019 (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 10, 24, 27, 48, 73, 81, 91, 92, 325) does strongly suggest that that page needs semi-protection at the least. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC).
• While we're at it, is there some reason not to block the SPAs that have made such a giant mess of the discussions above? I'd be fine with semiprotecting the talkpages and articles (I've semi'd talkpages before, it really shouldn't be a big deal), but blocking the existing accounts causing this mess also has to be part of any effective solution. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  I see no issue expanding this to a community-authorized GS, which would give administrators more leeway to block the accounts responsible for the disruption. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Example wording:

The community authorizes standard discretionary sanctions as general sanctions for topics related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. In addition, administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles in the topic area, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred. Administrators may also apply temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on talk pages and pages conducting RfCs related to the topic area provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

--qedk (t 桜 c) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is better than my wording. Do you want to start a new section with a proposal using that text? Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Done now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that two posts by TruthGuardians (incl. his vote) were removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=930957084&oldid=930956693 Israell (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Two posts full of insults by TruthGuardians were removed, indeed, and the user was blocked for ongoing insults, harassment, lack of good faith, and accusations of...well, look here. Israell, if you wish to defend such remarks, you are skating on very thin ice. You have already been warned about your own behavior: defending the comments by TruthGuardians (what a telling name) is just as inappropriate and blockable. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

TruthGuardians (talk · contribs) (account created 9 June 2019) is the editor with 325 edits mentioned in my "23 accounts were created in 2019" comment above. It's good when a small number of fans contribute in an area of interest, but it is not reasonable when a significant number of single-purpose accounts dominate discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I totally disagree with all of this, and I am honest. TruthGuardians is of good faith, and he's the one that was repeatedly bullied during his tenure on Wikipedia (Partytemple agrees). Maybe you disapprove of his choice of words, but he never lacked good faith. Israell (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Some examples of off-wiki canvassing with relation to pages about Michael Jackson on Wikipedia:-

• [26] (archive.is/Q2r0R) "The Michael Jackson Wikipedia page needs to be corrected. It’s full of mistruths and distorted facts....."
• [27] (archive.is/10Q8G) "A new wiki page on Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson needs input - Join the page and be a contributor..."
• [28] (archive.is/D3xxs) "Someone has completely edited MJ's vitiligo entry to try and post as much biased information about Michael and vitiligo as possible, can fans get together and fix this?"

Off-wiki canvassing is absolutely rampant. It seems that these editors are exhausting patience of just everyone who deals with them and the post by Flyer22 Reborn confirms one of such experiences. A few months ago there was an ANI thread[29] which led the topic ban on one user and final warning for another user. None of these measures have worked out. It is not that Michael Jackson is a contentious subject but the editors who are mostly attracted to edit these articles are mostly those come with unusual backgrounds they don't have enough understanding about WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FANCRUFT and rest of the other guidelines that play important role in deciding the fate of the article and in fact that they are not really able to write a few meaningful sentences in the English language which makes it very hard for others to spoon-feed these editors. They believe they have valid justifications for their POV edits, one of them includes their frequent comparison of irrelevant articles with the articles of this subject. What I propose is that we must support 500/30 restriction and topic ban a bunch of problematic editors who have proven history of disruptive editing in this subject. Excelse (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not oppose semi-protection. That said, and this is my observation, MJ-related articles have only gotten better ever since a group of editors (incl. Hammelsmith I do not always agree with, one of most polite editors I've ever come across), have gotten together to improve the articles. Attempting to silence a whole group of "pro-MJ editors" is objectionable. It's just like political articles. Attempting to silence all "pro-Trump/pro-Tommy Robinson/pro-Alex Jones and so on" editors is not the way to build an encyclopedia.

As documented above w/ evidence, a plot by anti-MJ fans to "take over the LN Wiki by any means necessary" was uncovered. It is incorrect to pretend only MJ fans have their eyes on Wiki. Canvassing is forbidden, but mentioning problems w/ certain Wiki articles is not. There was indeed a problem w/ a number of articles, and they were greatly improved these past months.

And I'd like to direct your attention to this tweet by Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson's nephew: There is a lot of false info on the Michael Jackson Wiki page that is wrong and proven false. @Wikipedia what are the steps to correct this?[30]

You'll notice that he did not ask MJ fans and admirers to rush to Wiki and make it a fansite! He directly asked Wikipedia what are the steps to correct false information. There is nothing objectionable about that. The Michael Jackson Wikipedia article is one of the most viewed page in the world! It is a fact that false information was posted, and it had to be addressed. And yes, there was POV-pushing on both sides, and all I want is fairness and accuracy. Israell (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

See: [31]. Just hours ago, a brand-new account nominated (on their second edit) the Charles Thomson article for deletion, an eight year-old article at that! This is a clear as rock water example of POV-pushing by possible anti-MJ meatpuppets. My point is, editors should not be demonized for "liking" MJ or not; what matters is fairness, accuracy and abiding by this site's rules. Israell (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the Hammelsmith commentary above, one should look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#Hammelsmith. Israell's views on Hammelsmith there certainly contrast their commentary on Hammelsmith above. The "I do not always agree with" comment is an understatement. Regarding the Taj Jackson post mentioned above, I've been with the Michael Jackson article for years, and I don't know what "a lot of false info" Taj Jackson was referring to. Either way, that post no doubt brought a lot of editors to Wikipedia to "correct" the Michael Jackson article and other Jackson articles. It matters not if he intended for that to happen. It's widely known that Twitter accounts with many followers influence people and can cause followers to get riled up and head to whatever site to support the cause of the Twitter poster and/or their own related cause. This is why people have been accused of using their Twitter followers to influence matters on other sites, including harassment of people. It's why some Twitter influences (including celebrities) do not (on Twitter) mention the names of people they may be in dispute with, because they don't want their followers going and harassing people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see the contrast. Hammelsmith is indeed one of the most polite editors I've come across on Wiki. I remember an exchange I had w/ them on a talk page, and they were very gentle in their response. Other editors and I had issues w/ their many edits we found to be disruptive, their disregard for warnings and possible bias, but I've always found them to be polite in their interactions with us. And yes, I do not always agree with them, but I do approve of some of their edits, so I fail to see the understatement.

Now, here's what happening. A brand-new user that went by Uranarse[32], on their second edit, nominated the Charles Thomson article for deletion. The template clearly stated: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." So did I. The template also clearly stated: "If this template is removed, do not replace it."

That user went on to replace it, saying: "Page marked for deletion, should not be removed without discussion." I once more removed the template, saying: "Uranarse, you were not supposed to replace the template I removed. The template says: “If this template is removed, do not replace it.”"

And guess what? They removed it again, telling me: "You have not followed the guidelines of fixing the bio to make it notable. You are edit warring." I tried on their talk page to make them understand that "or" is the keyword ("You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.), but obviously, they would not understand. They then pinged me on the Charles Thomson talk page with the same undue remark, and I had no choice but explain it all over again.

I then contacted an admin who took care of the matter and blocked them citing WP:ATTACKNAME. The admin also removed the template and confirmed to me that did I remove it myself, I would not have broken the three-revert rule 'cause a challenged prod is not supposed to be replaced. And I suspect Uranarse to be a sockpuppet of Jude1313. This is another clear example of disruption coming from the anti-MJ camp. There should be no disruption from either camps. Israell (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on establishing general sanctions on the topic of Michael Jackson, broadly construed

The community authorizes standard discretionary sanctions as general sanctions for topics related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. In addition, administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles in the topic area, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred. Administrators may also apply temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on talk pages and pages conducting RfCs related to the topic area provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

There is ample evidence above that meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry (including off-wiki canvassing) is rampant in this topic area and as things stand, it is impossible to prevent disruption by taking care of accounts one at a time, thus making more stringent measures necessary. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes please. Popcornduff (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve of semi-protection. Israell (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I am currently going through the articles to see if they need semi-protection. I am only able to do it when I have a free moment, so its slow, but I've looked at Michael Jackson's Boys. It was legitimately redirected once (there were no sources, and it was a stub that didn't assert notability), legitimately nominated for deletion twice (notability is questionable, despite being the focus of an academic article), and was once inappropriately blanked, a blanking that was reverted within 60 seconds. There is no vandalism. I'm not seeing protection as justified for a page that has been subject to one inappropriate edit in eleven months. I have done some minor editing on it to improve unclear or incorrect statements. I am now looking at Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, and I hope to do the others that Flyer listed by the end of the day. Until we have appropriate evidence of multiple users coordinating to edit the Jackson articles inappropriately, I'm not in favour of any blanket solutions. I'll report back when I've finished looking at the articles. SilkTork (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have semi-protected Health and appearance of Michael Jackson due to a long history of inappropriate IP edits. There were a few positive IP edits in the period I looked, but these were often simply reverting negative edits by IP editors. I saw some editorial disagreements, and reverting by some editors, mostly Flyer, but these seemed mostly within normal editorial parameters, and the reverted edits were often giving more weight to the use of the creams than is appropriate from what we can determine from reliable sources, but weren't pro-Jackson, don't appear to be coordinated, and though sub-optimal, were not sanctionable or particularly concerning. Editors seem to have the article under control. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wade Robson already has pending changes protection. SilkTork (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to QEDK for the ping. We ought to be proactive when it comes to articles with a high likelihood of touching BLP (Jackson of course is dead, but much of the PoV pushing and meatpuppetry concerns the living). I support this measure as proposed. ——SN54129 16:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I support the proposal. I stated more above. With that comment, I stated, in part, that there is no doubt that meatpuppetry has been going on at the Jackson articles. I don't think we need to locate a specific off-Wikipedia thread or similar to prove that meatpuppetry is going on when it's evident that it is per my original post in this thread and Johnuniq's original post in this thread. Wikipedia often handles obvious meatpuppetry cases without locating the off-Wikipedia site pulling the meatpuppets in. And in this case, per the sources I've included (in my original post) about Jackson fans and how they coordinate, it's not like it's just one site. And Excelse pointed to off-Wikipedia canvassing anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above this section. Although the main subject is not WP:BLP, it should be still noted that MJ fans have frequently violated WP:BLPs while touting Michael Jackson. One example is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson which has seen frequent violations of WP:BLPCAT and here, MJ fans falsely claim just any popular celebrity to have been influenced by Michael Jackson. Excelse (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sheesh, support. Looking at this discussion alone, as an uninvolved editor I see that it's obvious something has to be done. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per clear evidence of off-wiki canvassing, non-neutral editing, and related abusive behavior documented above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the clear evidence and reasons given by me and others above (including preceding the RfC). But in a nutshell, the online POV pushing done by Jackson fanatics is so bad it has been reported on in the media, concrete off-site evidence of doing so in relation to Wikipedia has been linked above, and we've seen it occur here on Wikipedia. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have any particular interest in Michael Jackson, apart from recognising that he was very popular as a performer and a songwriter, but I happen to have got involved in two deletion discussions about related topics, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Boys (2nd nomination), where people turned up and tried to derail the discussions with blatant lies, such as calling two sources one and saying that an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal is not an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal, as well as a single-purpose editor, who had, apart from creating a user page, had done nothing previously apart from a few edits to a copyright-violating article about Michael Jackson, removing the template saying that this was a single-purpose editor. This is clearly a topic area where people who have no interest in building an encyclopedia come here to push their point of view, so something needs to be done to prevent that, and this looks like the best way to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I am persuaded. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support When a dozen new accounts with no other edits are created solely to pile-on in a talk page, something unusual is required. The sanctions do not have to be used, and if an admin overdoes it with protection, they can be asked for a change, or overruled in a discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support the proposal as stated. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC).
• Support. I've had a look through some of these articles, and we really do need GS here. Take, for example, the hagiography that is Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, where Jackson's eccentricities are explained away with a whole paragraph written by a musicologist, and the issues with children are reduced to one sentence, which is "some of the public did not believe an innocuous relationship between Jackson and children, despite the evidence of wrongdoing being slim (and at times ludicrous) and the evidence of extortion being strong.", sourced to that same book. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite. You might have seen, but issues with that piece were addressed on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support The amount of accusations and counter accusations reminds me of WP:GS/MMA and WP:EEML so I will endorse regimes that show account holders whose purpose is not the improvement of WP the cold shoulder/door. Hasteur (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support The evidence of ongoing widespread disruption of MJ topic area articles organized off-Wikipedia is persuasive. Administrators need the tools to bring the disruption under control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support – the promotion, NPOV violations, canvassing, and other frequent disruption caused by fans of Michael Jackson needs better counter-measures. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 03:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - considering the amount of controversy he has been in (both in life and in death), as well as other sources of disruption, it would be wise to prevent further issues with general sanctions - whatever we decide those sanctions shall entail. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Make that change – gonna make a difference, gonna make it right. – Levivich 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Request quick action via WP:SNOWBALL. A week with no objections...make it happen ASAP. Buffs (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Just pointing to this comment by an SPA in case anyone missed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

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

---

Hello, could somebody take a look at WP:RFPP, backlogged for several hours now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Resolved by a number of admins (not including myself), with thanks Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks

Hello, I am attempting to create an article for the book: The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks, by Vietnamese President, Le Duan. Whenever I attempt to start the article I get this message:

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. "

Is there a specific reason this article has been blocked? I have checked the deletion logs and could not find a previous article about this book. Jp16103 02:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jp16103: The potential problem was the 'mental problems' part. The blacklist may need some tweaking. In the meantime I've created the title as a redirect so you can now edit it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kpaspery

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

---

I'm very surprised with the disruptive and unconstructive behavior of the User:Kpaspery (User:203.45.30.254). [33] [34] [35]. Also, is it okay to create an illusion of support like here? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP but I don't have time at the moment to investigate the other issues. By the way, this should be at WP:ANI although I'm happy for it to stay here. @Kpaspery: Please respond and say whether any personal attacks might be repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What is this? That is not my IP address. Are you blaming me because I was the last to edit Corvus tristis? --Kpaspery (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is also prohibited. IP editor edits the same pages as you and leaves the same racist remarks to me. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You have the wrong person buddy. If you didn't delete your user talk comments, others can see the remarks from other editors which is the same as mine. --Kpaspery (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, you are the first to make a personal racist attack. It is disappointing that you did not understand that this inappropriate in the civil community. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, Kpaspery has been socking for years as User:HandballHero. Blocked. ST47 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate copy

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

---

Draft:Swarup S Solanki is an exact copy of Madhavan Mukund, except that

Madhavan Mukund

Has been changed to

Swarup S Solanki

I can't use A10 because it's not an article. I thought I saw something that suggested prod but that only applies to articles. I can't believe we have to step through the bureaucracy of MFD for situations such as this. Is there an easier solution?

It's not quite a duplication of an existing topic it's worse. With AGF, perhaps someone think it's appropriate to copy another article and then make changes, but that's not the right way of doing things.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:G3? The creator submitted it, so presumably doesn't plan additional changes. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) In this case you could use WP:G12, because the original has not been attributed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

sorry mobile so can’t format right but see Draft:Swarup Solanki it’s a globally blocked vanity spammer. Praxidicae (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Any Commons admins about?

If so, could you please take a look at File:Kayla Rolland.jpg. Imma bout to hurl. John from Idegon (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident?

Note: I am not asking for any sanctions against anyone involved. I am asking that we think about what went all wrong here, and how we can avoid this in the future.

On 8 December, User:Ponni Concessao created Ponni Concessao. User:CAPTAIN RAJU gave some good advice / warnings on their user talk page, no issue there as far as I can see.

45 Minutes after creation, User:RHaworth tagged the page for A7 speedy deletion: [36]. That page had some issues (autobio with some promotional issues), but was not an A7 at all (some good sources liek The Hindu, some at first glance important awards like the "Berg Women Icon of Asia").

Despite this, it was deleted minutes later by User:Bbb23 as an A7 and as a G11 (which is incorrect as well: an autobio is not an automatic G11, and the page was far from the promotional drivel usually deleted as G11).

On the 17th, a "new" editor, User:Velanatti, created the page again. User:Nnadigoodluck tagged it some hours later as a G11, and Rhaworth deleted it as such. The page still was a mostly factual description of her life and work, with some peacock terms.

I then went to User talk:RHaworth to ask for a refund to draft space: they sent the page to me through email, stating "The article screams CoI at me and I have not received a reply to this question about possible sock puppetry. I have emailed the text to all three of you. If one of you restores it to draft space, I shall take no action". COI is not a speedy deletion reason, and sa I replied to Rhaworth, I was not allowed to restore the article from his emailed version, as that would lose the attribution. Rhaworth then restored the page to draftspace, which is good.

However, as they restored it with the G11 speedy template still in place, it was yet again deleted as a G11 ten minutes later by User:Jimfbleak. Why someone would speedy delete a new draft for being slightly promotional is not clear, I thought we had draftspace to note and solve such problems?

Meanwhile, Velanatti went to the Teahouse to ask for some guidance: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Ponni Concessao. As a response to that, Bbb23 checkuser blocked both User:Ponni Concessao and User:Velanatti (two other editors at the teahouse were helpful, thanks!). Now, these two are obviously the same, but the first one started and stopped editing on 8 December, without any blocks or sanctions, and the second one started editing the 17th. Why then both editors should be indef checkuserblocked is not clear, there was no block evasion, no votestacking, ... And not a single effort had been made to educate the newbie about what they did wrong and why having a new account might be a bad idea.

I asked at User talk:Bbb23#Query re checkuserblock whether there was anything I missed, because otherwise the block seemed baffling. In the meantime, at User talk:Velanatti they asked for an unblock which was denied by User:Yamla but then granted by Rhaworth; Bbb23 then promptly went to User talk:RHaworth#User:Velanatti to threaten them with desysopping for overturning their checkuserblock, and demanding that they reblock; meanwhile, they continue editing but haven't replied to my question about that block.

TLDR: a COI editor creates a page about a notable person, which is factual but obvious newbie material and slightly spammy / promotional. The page gets incorrectly tagged and deleted multiple times, the editor gets a very heavy-handed checkuserblock, admins are overruling one another, ignoring policies or using them as sledgehammers... Instead, we should have educated the editor (which some people did, but which got trampled by the other actions), improved the article (and/or moved it to draftspace), and ended up with a decent article, perhaps a new editor (many editors start as COI editors and end up as regular ones), no admin actions, no bad blood between admins, and no too long AN section. Fram (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, we don't undo checkuser blocks as there is probably more involved than can be discussed openly. And reading between the lines, there is probably more involved than meets the eye.-- Deepfriedokra 14:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

When one restores a deleted page, one should remove the CSD tag before someone else deletes it again.-- Deepfriedokra 14:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

And one should check the history and the logs to see whether this was previously deleted and restored before deleting. Regards SoWhy 14:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is overblown. Apparently, because I haven't responded immediately to Fram's concerns, we end up here. Whether the user should be unblocked is an issue that should be dealt with in the normal way. Personally, I'm not convinced that they should, but I'm willing to listen. However, undoing a CU block, which has not happened to me before, is a very serious matter. I didn't "threaten" RHaworth. I simply wanted him to undo his unblock and pointed out to him the consequences of his actions. Frankly, I'm very surprised that an administrator of his experience should not know that what he did was wrong. And, as I stated, even if it had been a normal block, he didn't consult with me or even give me a heads up. He just unblocked. In my view, Fram's bringing this here makes it worse for RHaworth as this is a more public venue than his Talk page, and I was giving him a chance to rectify his error.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not here for that one aspect, I'm here because this went from one low to another. But as for your role, you had the time to immediately jump on Rhaworth to demand reblocking (fine), but not to explain the actual merits of that same block? It's not as if some extreme vandal or abuser was unblocked, was it? Now that you are here, can you perhaps answer whether there is anything more to the block than a newbie who made a second account, without doing anything problematic (I mean, they went to the Teahouse asking about the deletions, so it's not as if they did all they could to hide the connection). Were there other accounts already blocked which warrented this CU block? Fram (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I spend a lot of time patrolling the requests for unblock. On my user page, I state, "If you come across a block placed by a third admin which I have already declined but which you feel should be lifted, please do not feel constrained against lifting the unblock on my account. I may be more conservative at unblocking than you are. I would not consider this wheel-warring." Although it is only a small part of the concern being raised here, I don't object to RHaworth overturning my decision to leave the block in place. Note that I've previously inappropriately lifted a checkuser block and been appropriately told off for doing so (quite possibly by Bbb23, though I can't recall for sure). Note that I suspect the article at the root of the problem is a case of WP:AUTOBIO, though it could just be WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Draftify is kinder than nuke for cases like this. Guy (help!) 14:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I know that Fram was not seeking sanctions against anyone, but I do have concerns about RHaworth's knowledge of policy. RHaworth's conduct has led to several ANI threads (see here, here and here), mainly due to his alleged indiscriminate speedy deletions and brusque replies to newbies on his user talk page, although I think he has tried to improve in this regard and it's somewhat ironic that he's now here partly because he undeleted a page in an attempt to help a newbie. For a longstanding admin he does appear to lack basic understanding of how things work. I recall that a few months ago he appeared to have no idea what Oversight was and directed a user query regarding it to the Bureaucrats Noticeboard) and now he is overturning a checkuser block unilaterally? How can he be unaware that this is forbidden by policy?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding, concerns about RHaworth's knowledge of policy, is it knowledge, or willful disregard? To be fair, he does a huge amount of work. It's possible his error rate is no worse than mine, but since he does 10x the volume, he makes 10x the errors, so his name shows up 10x more often at DRV, ANI, etc. Still, if that's the case, I'd rather see him slow down and put more consideraion into each action. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What you just said has been said before at these boards. Given RHaworth's comment at Velanatti's Talk page (and the fact that he didn't even consult with me before unblocking even had it been a normal block), I lean toward "willful disregard" and rogue-like behavior. I think he does pretty much what he wants.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to say "neither knowledge, nor willful disregard" - but seriously reckless. As has been said before, it's not the borderline cases that are the issue - RHaworth's scale of work is so big to make that pool large without being problematic. But the multiple ANIs on other cases are a sign that he acts without a pause on some clearcut problematic ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of admin actions and willful disregard, per WP:ADMINACCT, Bbb23, do you plan on answering questions about the CU block or not? Not about the fact that the two accounts are one and the same editor, that was obvious without a CU when you had access to the deleted article: but about why they deserved to be both insta-indef-blocked for what were arguably good faith newbie mistakes? Fram (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fram, I know you have an agenda here, defending the poor downtrodden newbies from the cruelty of administrators, but I'll play along a bit and then willfully ignore you if I can. This came to my attention when an editor pinged me to this discussion at the Teahouse. Ironically, RHaworth asked Velanatti what the relationship was between Velanatti and Ponni Concessao, which once I looked at the two accounts' behavior was a reasonable question. Velanatti never responded, and, AFAIK, never disclosed the earlier account until they requested an unblock. Given there was ample evidence to run a check, I did so. Contrary to your assertion, nothing is guaranteed in the world of socks, so there was a possibility that the two accounts were not related. I've seen this many times - and I think I know a smidgen more than you do about socks - and without a clear technical connection, I would not have blocked. Finally, the fact that the accounts did not overlap timewise and that the earlier account wasn't blocked does not prevent a block for socking. The fact that both accounts were promoting the same person without disclosing that they were the same person is sufficient abuse to justify a block. Any defense by the individual can be addressed in a post-block discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If that's been Fram's agenda this entire time, then I think I seriously regret not voting in his last RFA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Bbb23, what is the problem with that agenda you perceive? It looks like at least some people agree that not everything in this whole situation was really up to the standards we may achieve from admins. Not only your block, but the taggings and deletions as well, and the unblock of a CU block. Apparently Adminacct is some unreasonable burden for you? As is warning people, educating them about what is allowed and what isn't? Or not deleting articles for A7 when they have clear claims to notability? Because that's also an admin action you took which was very dubious. " The fact that both accounts were promoting the same person without disclosing that they were the same person is sufficient abuse to justify a block. " Really? Without any warning or lighter sanctions? Without any attempt to guide the editor? "Finally, the fact that the accounts did not overlap timewise and that the earlier account wasn't blocked does not prevent a block for socking. " Actually, it does in most cases. From WP:SOCK intro: "Sock puppetry takes various forms:

   Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
   Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
   Using another person's account (piggybacking)
   Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
   Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)"

Which of those applies here? Only the second one, at first glance, apart from the fact that you only became aware of the account through the Teahouse discussion where they basically disclosed that they were one and the same (as if that wasn't obvious by creating the exact same page), and where they even linked to you: "Hi fellow wikipedians a few days back i created a page with proper content & reliable sources (Ponni_Concessao) before a while ago it got deleted by User:Bbb23."

Let me repeat this: they said they had created the previous version, and that you had deleted that one: and they linked to you explicitly, meaning you would get a notification. So contrary to what you claim, they had disclosed that they were the same person, no checkuser was needed, and the claim that they "never disclosed the earlier account until they requested an unblock" is disproven by the very discussion you link to here. Can you now please unblock the account (I won't even request that you make an apology, like you did from RHaworth). Fram (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Given the many ways notifications can go wrong, it's unwise to assume someone got one. In this case, if Bbb23 was notified, it wouldn't have been by User:Velanatti. Velanatti did not in fact link to Bbb23 when creating their post. [37] They changed this later, but that would not trigger a notification as no new line as added. [38] Further, even if they had gotten it right the first time, they didn't sign their post. [39] BTW, the fact that Velanatti did not sign their post is still visible in the current discussion Bbb23 linked to that you referred to, and I presume it was the same when you checked it out. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not say I was pinged by Velanatti in that discussion. I said I was linked by an "editor" without mentioning his username, but for clarity it was AlanM1.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well; I imagine if this goes to arbcom—as some seem to be intimating, although not yet saying outright (who wants to put the bell on the cat?)—the CU block would be scrutinised as a causative event, I wouldn't wonder.

Obviously, in case it is unclear, I'm advocating neither. ——SN54129

I agree with Guy that Draftifying would've been the way to go here. I'll also add my own opinion that I think Bbb23 may get a little trigger happy with the Checkuser blocks, or at least that is the case here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I did a rather thorough review of all of Bbb's blocks for users I had welcomed to the project. The blocks I found I disagreed with Bbb the most on didn't appear to involve the functionary tool whatsoever. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• There are some things being misused here. A7 is for articles lacking a credible claim of significance. This is not the case here, as the subject receiving national awards reaches this low bar. Claims don't have to be backed up by reliable sources to meet this, but in this case they are. C11 is problematic: in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. It is problematic because we have no consensus whatsoever on when something requires a "fundamental rewrite" or what is meant by "encyclopedic". Like Fram, I thought it was only for blatant advertising, and am troubled by its application in this case. As a non-admin, when I put something up for speedy deletion, I usually want it speedily, as it is probably holding me or one of the bots up; but it shouldn't be done thoughtlessly. Which brings us to the undelete. When an article is undeleted, does the admin see it in its undeleted form? A software change may be required here. Thirdly, the images were removed from the article, ostensibly because they were copyvio, but action was taken to put them up for deletion. This is the second time in as many days that I have seen this happen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  When you undelete a page you are taken to a confirmation page that your action went through, not to the page you've just undeleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  So to know that there is a speedy deletion tag on it, the admin would have to then load the page, right? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Or look at it before he restored it. Or, y'know, remember that he only found it in the first place because there was a speedy deletion tag on it. —Cryptic 22:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  In this particular instance the speedy deletion nomination was clearly labeled in the article's history which is located immediately below the section that lets you restore the entire page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Hawkeye7. This is a caustic and WP:BITEy reply to a noob. Some admins view themselves as the gatekeepers and it's their job to prevent EVERYTHING unnecessary from entry. Unfortunately, that can result in zeal that errs on the side of deletion rather than inclusion. This is just one example of the inevitable results. I'm not calling for a block or anything of the kind, merely community consensus that such behavior should stop. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I have to agree with the above. This was horrible botched from the very start. The initial CSD tag by RHaworth was blatantly inapplicable, and the fact that an administrator added it is concerning. I agree that it shows a huge lack of policy understanding, or an outright willingness to ignore it. Tacking on G11 (unsalvageable spam) is unconvincing, as the article did not require a fundamental rewrite, but some minor copyediting. But I can at least see that part as being justifiable. The second G11 however is blatantly inapplicable as well! Both bad CSD actions were done by RHaworth. The CU block is also dubious, indeed it's hard to see where Sock or CU policy would have been applicable. Abandoning that old account and making a new one does not only appear to be benign, as no actual socking was attempted and there was no overlap whatsoever between the two accounts, but it was probably the appropriate thing to do, as the first account was most likely a violation of username policy, per either WP:MISLEADNAME or WP:PROMONAME. Now, I have found Bbb's behavior to be subpar on more than one occasion. He can be overly aggressive, unduly hostile, and he oftentimes plays fast and loose with the rules, and in my opinion is prone to acting more like an unaccountable, independent fiefdom, than a servant of the community. I've criticized him for it on more than one occasion and I'd like to believe he is working on it. I do recognize that the for every issue I have with Bbb, there are thousands upon thousands of thankless tasks he is performing. I can see this as a lack of patience and excessive heavy-handedness on his end. I'm not pleased with his approach here but I can at least understand it. Bbb23 should take note that this could have been handled better, nothing more. As for RHaworth, I'm actually seriously concerned. I have no idea what this guy is doing and he appears to be operating completely off the rails. I don't see how an editor of that magnitude can actually lack simple policy knowledge, and I agree with the above suggestions that this reflects not a poor understanding of policy, but a wanton disregard for them. Adding an inapplicable CSD tag. Then, actioning this inapplicable CSD tag on the same article. Then, SALTing the article, after it had been appropriately recreated and inappropriately deleted. And to top it all off, unilateral reversion of a CU block? What the hell is going on here? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Horrible abuse. What's the process for revoking checkuser rights over abuse? Using it to BITE newbies is not why the tool exists. Wikipedia was not protected with this abuse of process and misuse of tools and policy. In fact it was harmed and it needs to be stopped. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that part of the basis for this thread is now part of an Arbitration Case Request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is the equivalent of shooting someone who walks into a police station to report that they may have been trespassing. Agreed that there needs to be some form of oversight over the checkuser process. Policy-wise there might not have been anything strictly wrong with the initial block, but from a common sense standpoint, it was a poor block indeed. No comment on RHaworth; I think the WP:ARBCOM case will handle that with the thoroughness it deserves--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Does BITE even still apply any more? Larssen sheet piling seems to be trying to even out-do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In practice? No. Overall new page patrolling is so eager to chase away everyone who might have a conflict of interest they chase away everyone except those people whose conflict of interest is so strong it makes them willing to take a fair amount of bites. ;) Of course, there are solutions, but they're mostly not policy ones (except, perhaps, re-writing all the warning and notification templates to make them human-readable). WilyD 06:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is very much the Wikipedia way to choose a group of volunteers to whom the poster does not belong, and to dump on them. It is very much the Wikipedia way, which doesn't make it the right thing to do. Thank you for your comment dumping on New Page Patrol. Maybe we should go back to a few years ago when the new page list was even more polluted with crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New editors would be less likely to be bitten if they got a little experience editing existing pages rather than thinking that every new editor should create one new page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like that characterisation of new page patrol - a machine in which I am definitely a cog, you're welcome to fix it. Solutions that require new editors to have significant experience probably won't be effective, though. WilyD 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it fair to ask what the knock-on effects of NPP are. And the degree to which we tolerate COI editing is indeed ripe for discussion. That said I don't think NPP's attempts to limit COI damage to our encyclopedia are doing more harm than good and indeed I would suggest the benefits far outweigh the costs. If Wily has thoughts about non-BITEY language that could be used by NPP around this area, or other concrete changes to procedures to suggest, I know I would be interested in hearing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers (1958 film)

Volunteers (1958 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Persistent vandalism, please protect the article or block a dozen of single-edit accounts who vandalize it. Please move this request to an appropriate place if needed. VLu (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done, the appropriate place would have been WP:RFPP--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

BGRDebasis

BGRDebasis (talk · contribs) is seemingly a spam/promotional account; all edits reverted. Should be blocked. ɱ (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Feel free to take it AFD if you like, this board is not for deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this really the sort of thing we should be covering? Isn't that just a smidge too political for here? The opening statement literally boils down to "Hes a big dirty liar."HalfShadow 00:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential case of sock puppetry

A few months ago I had reported an incident which involved User:Physo172, a 13-year-old user who had been using multiple accounts abusively. The user had also created a bunch of hoaxes about historical figures that actually did not even exit and those articles were later moved to the draft space by the admins. Now he seems to be back under the user name Internetexpert41, and users on Persian and Turkish Wikipedia have notified me that he has started creating articles without any historical basis by falsely attributing them to books that do not even mention these individuals. I ask the admins to take the steps necessary to prevent this from happening as it could seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 02:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Internetexpert41 and Intersh182 are  Confirmed on English Wikipedia. Given the potential for hoaxes, I would prefer to speedily delete all these articles per WP:G5 (created by a sock), but I'm not 100% sure that policy will let me. They were created by a sock, but the original articles were histmerged into the new articles, so some of the articles are listed as having been created by the sock master, not the the sock puppet. I don't think I could make the determination whether these articles are hoaxes, so someone else should probably look at them. It'll be tedious, but someone should also look through the other edits to see if they're vandalism/hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The name Nevfidan Kadın does appear in one source that is on Google Books, so that person is at least not made up. The others ... WP:HOAX recommends PRODding and a {{hoax}} tag, perhaps that's the way to go if nobody else goes and checks each article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• You could always go with WP:G3's obvious hoax variant, if it appears like it's pretty blatant. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Tried that, but without success. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there might be an argument for treating this as a special case and deleting all the articles created by this editor and his socks. Because he uses obscure book references to create an illusion on credibility it is very difficult to scrutinise each article on its own merits and there is a real risk of a significant number of extant hoax articles. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I moved Beyhan Sultan (daughter of Ibrahim) and Kamerfer Kadın to draft space. Someone who knows what they're doing can look over those articles and remove any vandalism. Taner Ölmez is short and has been expanded by someone other than the blocked vandal. I assume it's safe to leave in mainspace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking for Advice on Recent Incident at Christianity

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

---

Please note: I am NOT looking for sanctions, reporting, or anything else regarding any editors. I am looking for advice and guidance on what the best course of action is / would have been at the article Christianity.

The facts, as I understand them:

• On December 7, a discussion was posted on Talk:Christianity, discussing the striking of a contentious statement from the lede. Three editors weighed in, and unanimously agreed to strike it. No other editors weighed in.
• On December 9, user Mikey2maaaa reverted the strike, without comment. The revert was itself reverted, by one of the original three editors, with a request to "take it to Talk". No additions were made to the Talk page.
• On December 17, user Mikey2maaaa again reverted the strike without comment. This was again reverted, by one of the original three editors, with another request to "take it to Talk". Again, no additions were made on the Talk page.
• Today, December 19, is when stuff hit the fan. User Wowimsonick and DVD Vision both restored the struck statement, 3 times total, again without comment and without engaging on Talk, despite both being informed that policy requires it. (They were informed of this requirement, by my statements in the reversion comments, on the Talk page, and on their user talk pages. Note that Wowimsonick is temporarily blocked for unrelated edit warring, and DVD Vision reverted my Edit Warring warning on their Talk page, without comment.)
• I reverted each of these three changes, because per my understanding, the elapsing of 12 days, coupled with a refusal to comment on the reversions or discuss them on Talk as required by WP:EDITWAR, means that a new consensus with the statement removed has been established in the article, until editors decide otherwise on Talk.
• User Jeppiz then posted an Edit War warning on my Talk Page (which I reverted, as I do not believe enforcing anti-Edit War policy itself qualifies as Edit Warring).
• User Jeppiz then stated his/her reasons why, per WP policy, s/he believed I was acting inappropriately and aggressively, on Talk:Christianity, warning that I may be reported for "disruptive behavior". I replied, citing my own reasons why I believe WP policy is clearly on my side.
• Interestingly, both Jeppiz and myself have expressed support for the statement in some form. But until it's hashed out on Talk:Christianity, I do think maintaining the consensus of the current article is the appropriate action. What say you?

Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep this short. I think Jtrevor99 is acting in good faith, although reluctant to listen to my advice. The fact that they have come here for a second opinion is positive. Much like Jtrevor99, I'm not looking for any block, just a quick reminder to Jtrevor99 about policy. It's quite simple: Jtrevor99 has misunderstood WP:3RR. There is a content dispute at Christianity. During this content dispute, Jtrevor99 reverted three times in 20 minutes [40], [41], [42]. For a user to say that they are "enforcing anti-Edit War policy" while reverting over and over again indicates a basic misunderstanding of that policy. Likewise, Jtrevor99 has been handing out inaccurate warnings over edit warring, for example warning one use who had only edited once for editing warring [43]. Again, reverting three times oneself and warn others for reverting once is mistaken.

In short Jtrevor99 seems to think that edit warring is to prefer the "wrong" version in a content dispite even if editing only once, while one can revert multiple times for the "right" version. Any experienced WP user could say that if that were the case, we'd have non-stop edit wars. Everybody (except vandals) believe they are right. I do not want Jtrevor99 blocked (and they have not done anything to warrant a block). I commend Jtrevor99 for coming here. Hopefully some admins can back me up in saying that edit warring is to revert multiple times in a content dispute, regardless of who is right or wrong. Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevant policies, then, seem to be WP:RS and WP:NPOV (the original complaints); WP:CONSENSUS (I would particularly point towards WP:CCC and WP:TEND, i.e. a deletion that WAS discussed and unanimously agreed on, versus a reinsertion that was NEVER discussed.); WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR, and probably others. And, of course, we have taken it here per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think people are getting too hung-up on what should be the current version while this is discussed further on the talk page. In the long-term scheme of things there's nothing wrong with the "wrong" version being in place for a few weeks (not just a couple of days) while people discuss the issue in good faith on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

---

El_C, something went wrong here. I don't disagree at all with your protection of the article (hadn't edited it myself), but it seems both you and Phil Bridger might have misread the discussion. Jtrevor99 asked for clarifications on WP:3RR. I provided my two cents, but asked for an admin to verify it. I think that shows good will on Jtrevor99's part. I'm pinging EdJohnston with his mastery of the relevant policy in the hope that he'll have the time to provide Jtrevor99 with at least a short answer. Jeppiz (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not reopen archived reports. In answer to your question, there has been no 3RR violations, on anyone's part. El_C 19:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

2020 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2020:

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SoWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The one-year terms of these arbitrators also begin on 1 January 2020:

• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions. Xeno has elected not to receive administrator permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2019:

• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will retain Oversight
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will retain Oversight

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2019 at their own request:

  CheckUser: Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• Both outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• Both outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2020 Arbitration Committee

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 closed

An arbitration case regarding Palestine-Israel articles (4) has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Condensing of remedies

1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):

ARBPIA:

• Editors reminded
• Editors counseled
• Standard discretionary sanctions (for "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages")

ARBPIA2:

• Area of conflict
• Lifting of restrictions
• Suspension of restrictions

ARBPIA3:

• General Prohibition (of users not "extended confirmed")
• Sanctions available

Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.

Editors reminded

2) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and making use of dispute resolution where necessary.

Wikipedia cannot resolve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all real-life conflict parties. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Editors counselled

3) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish to devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds that they become caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.

Definition of the "area of conflict"

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

a. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and

b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

ARBPIA General Sanctions

5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".

A. Discretionary sanctions: Standard discretionary sanctions are activated for the area of conflict. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing the area of conflict whilst aware.

B. 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

C. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Standing sanctions upon primary articles

6) All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} should be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} should be added as an editnotice to affected pages. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles. The templates may be added to primary articles by any user, but may only be removed by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

General sanctions upon related content

7) All edits made to related content (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) will be subject to ARBPIA General Sanctions.

When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} in the editnotice to do so. If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools. Administrators should only utilize the ARBPIA General Sanctions to reduce disruption caused by edits related to the conflict area. Problematic edits made to unrelated content on the same page should be handled by normal administrative means.

Disputes about scope of conflict area

8) In the case of disputes regarding whether or not an article is a primary article, or whether a portion of content is related to ARBPIA, editors should use normal dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus.

Available sanctions

9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

i. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;

ii. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

iii. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

iv. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

v. Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 closed

Donald Trump factoid spam

Can we swing with a heavy hammer at all the "Donald Trump is the first [person from the article] to be impeached" contributions? I mean come on Q ^{T C} 22:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could tell people where this is happening, by means of diffs. I believe that Trump is the third US president to be impeached, which seems to me, from across the pond, to be the important thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You can check the history for Home Alone 2 or check these diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_National_Golf_Club_Westchester&diff=prev&oldid=931678139
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Alone_2:_Lost_in_New_York&diff=prev&oldid=931707063
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=931707355&oldid=927880983&title=WWE_Hall_of_Fame_(2013)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_(American_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=931707746
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Military_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=931708369
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Pennsylvania&diff=prev&oldid=931708770
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exostosis&diff=prev&oldid=931709022
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivana_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=931709704
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Little_Rascals_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=931710559
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=57th_Primetime_Emmy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=931710977
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoolander&diff=prev&oldid=931712153
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_videos&diff=prev&oldid=931712624

Q ^{T C} 22:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If they all have a similar format, maybe an edit filter? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's all one user AFAICS, so no need for that, surely. User:Murica2020 seems to have created their account purely for the purpose of adding such stuff to articles. Look at this for instance, added to the Ivana Trump article: "On December 18th, 2019 Ivana Trump became the first former Czechoslovkian [sic] model to have an ex-husband impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives." Unbelievable. Now that OverlordQ has warned them, I hope the next admin who sees another related addition from them, or other trolling, blocks indefinitely. I'm on my way to bed myself, unfortunately. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

Oh, my bad, from the way it was written I assumed it was a whole bunch of people (it seems to have become a meme on social media). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That account is clearly WP:NOTHERE and maybe should've been blocked already. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:Robmillernow may be another. See: [44] as well as [45]. --Masem (t) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it got posted to Reddit, so theres going to be some copycatting. Q ^{T C} 03:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah....mentioning something in the article on Trump (and/or his presidency) is definitely worthwhile, but going this....overkill....is not. I will note that both accounts mentioned have since been blocked (Murica2020 indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE and Robmillernow for 1 week due to disruptive editing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And now there's Special:Diff/931758715 and Special:Diff/931778745, from different IPs. I'll do something about a filter, instead of waiting weeks as with the Epstein didn't kill himself crap. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Logging at filter 1018 (hist · log). Will need further refinement before disallowing, but let's see how common this is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• yep. I hate Twitter 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And now Newsweek too Q ^{T C} 16:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There's good reason that the current iteration of Newsweek has been questioned as an RS... --Masem (t) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:EFN § Set filter 1018 to warn?. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

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

---

WP:RFPP needs attention. Sorry, I have to go! Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Move Draft:Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School back to mainspace for AfD

The page Draft:Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School has existed as an article for a dozen years. I suggest that an administrator moves the draft back to mainspace at Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School and then brings the article to articles for deletion to obtain consensus for notability or non-notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with moving it to article space specifically for the purpose of the AFD. If its notability is uncertain, it should be in draft space. If it is in draft space, it should be moved to article space by an editor who is willing to defend its notability. If no one is willing to defend its notability, it can be left in draft space. If that means G13 in June 2020, that means G13 in June 2020. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:DRAFTIFY. We don't send 10-year-old articles to draft space. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't need help from an admin: you can do all that yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request: Steverci

Steverci (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

Steverci has submitted the following appeal:

Dear Wikipedians, I humbly ask that you consider my appeal for my editing sanctions. In the past I hadn't bothered to understand how to properly edit Wikipedia and just wanted to aggressively push how I wanted certain pages to look, whether by getting into edit wars or by making extra accounts. I have put off making this appeal for a long time to make sure I truly return to editing Wikipedia with a new mindset so as not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. I have extensively studied WP:CONS, WP:DR, WP:EQ, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:SOCK, and other similar pages to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. My block has allowed me the time to reflect on what I did was wrong and that the administration was right to impose sanctions on my account because of my behavior. I now believe the sanctions are no longer necessary because I have a completely different outlook from what I had years ago. I now understand that Wikipedia isn't a battleground to fight with others but an encyclopedia that users work together to improve. I promise that I will not resort to sock puppeting anymore and I will work on building consensus with other users instead of edit warring. Thank you for taking the time to read this appeal, and I hope you all will consider giving me the chance to prove the genuineness of my words by editing Wikipedia productively once again. --Steverci (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No socking seen, and no objections as a CU if someone else unblocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)