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	1	14	0	15
TfD	0	0	16	0	16
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	100	0	100
AfD	0	0	5	0	5

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 219 sockpuppet investigations
• 3 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 10 Candidates for history merging
• 77 requests for RD1 redaction
• 51 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 112 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 29 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8186 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ras Sedr massacre 2024-08-03 04:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Ivory messagebox/styles.css 2024-08-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4463 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sodhi 2024-08-02 17:15 2024-09-02 17:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing Anachronist Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk 2024-08-01 21:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by LTA Jauerback Lin Yu-ting 2024-08-01 20:47 2024-08-11 20:47 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Real Malabar FC 2024-08-01 20:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C Silver Synth 2024-08-01 19:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Imane Khelif 2024-08-01 17:14 2024-09-01 17:14 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) 2024-08-01 14:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Isabelle Belato Beit Jala 2024-08-01 11:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ismail al-Ghoul 2024-08-01 03:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier 2024-07-31 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Inprogress 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Cricket squad2 player 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Spike (missile) 2024-07-31 16:03 2024-08-07 16:03 edit,move WP:ARBPIA4 temporary enforcement Swatjester Kefas Brand (actor) 2024-07-31 15:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bishonen Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-07-31 12:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page as currently on main page; it's been moved regularly over the last couple of days Schwede66 Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Death of Paul Kessler 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Azzam Pasha quotation 2024-07-31 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War 2024-07-31 01:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 80th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-31 01:11 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Megagle 2024-07-31 00:56 2026-07-31 00:56 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic 2024-07-30 21:20 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Haret Hreik airstrike 2024-07-30 19:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Talk:Sister location circus fox 2024-07-30 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Fouad Shuker 2024-07-30 19:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Israeli attack on Beirut 2024-07-30 19:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Jhanak 2024-07-30 16:56 indefinite move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Bat Ayin 2024-07-30 15:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli

An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS

A month ago I closed an ANI thread which was a mixture of behavioral concerns and content concerns. That thread reached no consensus of sanctions against any editor but did arrive at a strong consensus for how to handle the content dispute - by conducting a formal Request for Comment (RFC). Basically by default I have found myself as an uninvolved sysop attempting to see through the ANI consensus and mediate a way towards an RfC. We are at a moment where additional editor attention would be helpful and in some cases essential to this process. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS RfC

• The discussion has been voluminous despite only a half dozen or so editors, including myself, participating. (Fun fact, with a hat tip to EdJohnston, but the discussion is longer than AN and ANI combined). I should have worked harder to limit this output from all participants (including myself).
• Most editors who have been participating in the process have gravitated towards this RfC question (option 1) and format with the belief that only minor changes are necessary before launching. Tryptofish feels that the other RfC format will not be successful and has offered an alternative (option 2) which so far has not garnered any support from participating editors. If you wish to comment about either RfC and/or the potential launch of Option 1 here is probably the best place to go.
• Note there is an ongoing RfC

According to the ANI close this should be done by an uninvolved sysop. While I remain uninvolved someone with fresh eyes agreeing that the RfC is neutral would be for the best, in my opinion and so I am looking for that uninvolved sysop. Additionally, I would love to line-up an experienced and capable editor (or panel of 3) and who would be willing to act as closer(s) at the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I can act as a closer (or be a member of the panel). I am totally uninvolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, got unexpected real-life emergency issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there no chance the differences between Tryptofish and others can be resolved without a lot more participation? Might an approach where Tryptofish highlights one part of the proposal and explains how they would change it and why, and the participants discuss this and try to come to an understanding work? Or has this been tried and didn't work or is not possible since Tryptofish feels the nature of their concerns mean they can only be understood by changing the whole RfC? In any case, Doc James seems to be one of the biggest proponents of one "side" and Colin and to some extent SandyGeorgia the other. Are they at least all on board with the current proposed RfC? This doesn't guarantee the RfC will work or product a clear outcome and I'm no means suggesting other's views aren't also very important, but it would I think reduce concerns that the RfC may have ended up one-sided. P.S. Other participants highlighting a part of Tryptofish's RfC proposal and how they will change it an why is another possibility but since it sounds like there is significantly more support for option 1, it makes more sense in the other direction IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the differing proposals, I understand why what I suggested probably isn't going to work as it is indeed a difference in how the RfC should be approached that affects the whole RfC so I've struck that suggestion. IMO "option 1" doesn't preclude something like Tryptofish's proposal in the future. I already sort of said this yesterday but IMO if most editors feel a more open ended approach is preferred, it may be better to let them try provided they understand that sometimes it just means limited participation and also no clear outcome, and there is probably no way to word an RfC to prevent that. And so it's possible this RfC will provide little help in drafting the 2nd RfC and in addition, the 2nd RfC may also have depressed participation. And in the mean time, the issues will be unresolved and likewise any concern they have over articles, as the moratorium/embargo may remain if there's no clear direction of the community. Of course it is also possible there will be a clear result from the first RfC maybe not even requiring a second 2nd RfC or at least convincing everyone of the right course of action for articles before it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The first RFC is laughably POV. I find very little chance that it will be NPOV before it is launched. Trypto was only being fair when they explained that it will probably end in failure due to this POV, for which they were threatened with interventions. When Barkeep talks of most editors they are mostly talking about the ones who have not been bludgeoned out of the discussion, which are two on one of side of the argument and another paid to be on Wikipedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't share your view that the first RfC is biased towards a specific point of view. In fact, I think it may be trying too hard to just present examples without going through the pros and cons of how the data is presented. I suspect most people who aren't highly familiar with the competing concerns will just take a cursory look at the text and give a gut-feel reaction, which won't help move the discussion forward.

On a more general note regarding multi-phase discussions: the sticking point for many Wikipedia decision-making discussions is maintaining engagement from a broad set of editors in order to establish a true broad consensus view. There are a few issues that have addressed through multiple phases of discussion, such as pending changes (for example, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012) and the request for administrative privileges process (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC and Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform). Even with these highly popular topics, the degree of involvement by the community diminished as the phases went by. For topics with fewer interested parties, it can be a challenge to ensure there is enough input at the end to determine an unassailable result. The benefits of expediency need to be weighed against the advantages of gaining more information to better shape discussion.

That being said, sometimes it is necessary to have a workshop phase to collect data and work through ideas, refining them further. Establishing a consensus view requires patience. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacl, you're correct that I'm going a bit out of my way to make the question feel neutral, even though the two sides aren't really equal in the type or strength of their arguments. Also, on some points, there just aren't two sides. For example, the price given in the first example is mathematically incorrect. Despite the recent request from User:AlmostFrancis to hear the other side, ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal the price in the first example. There is no other side here: everyone already agrees that it's impossible to multiply three numbers together and end up with a prime number. That said, I don't really want people to go into the RFC looking at trivial points like the occasional typo in a price, or with nothing but vague enthusiasm for Doing Something, without helping us figure out what can and should be done. I want editors to think about the important points: What claims do we think this database can support? We need to re-check all of this anyway (see: typos), and we might as well make any other recommended changes at the same time. I'm thinking that we need to invite the data geeks and stats folks to this phase, so we can talk about what is realistically possible with this database.

But to do that, we need to actually get the RFC open, and ANI said that we need an uninvolved admin to opine that it's neutral enough before we can start an RFC. If any admin would please look at it and express an opinion (either way!), that would be really helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Note I didn't use "neutral", as that is tangential to my view. I think it would be helpful to actually go through a list of the advantages and concerns for each example, so potential commenters can be made aware of them up front. I strongly suspect that all key issues have already been identified and so as I see it, the goal is to gather viewpoints on how to best manage these considerations. I believe there will be more engagement with an explicit list of items to consider. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, and you aren't an admin, which ANI required for this bureaucratic step. We've been talking about it. The identified problems in those lists (not all of which apply to any given statement, of course) is lengthy, policy-focused, overwhelming, and damaging. And, yes, the group has identified valid problems, and everyone's already agreed that some of these truly are problems, but I think that the overall effect of listing all the problems at the top would be running down one side unfairly, because the "pro" side is pretty much left with little to say beyond apologizing for not magically having done a perfect job on the first try at an unexpectedly complex task. I don't think that will *feel* neutral, even if it technically is.

The problem with your suggestion in terms of what I want to learn is that if I post a list of identified problems, I won't find out what's right, or what could be done right, or which categories of problems seem most salient to editors. I'll just get a bunch of editors dumping drive-by vote on the page that say little more than "Me, too, because All True Editors are always opposed to all problems". What I need is editors saying, "Okay, maybe that first effort wasn't perfect, but this is complicated, and let's see how we can build on it. Do we need WP:INTEXT attribution for that database? I think you should try..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the pro side is just apologizing for flaws; there are reasons why people support certain ways of presenting the data, such as conciseness and use of (I know, hotly disputed behind the scenes) standard dosages. Just because they're not perfect doesn't mean they don't have advantages. I just think it's asking too much for commenters to replicate the analyses that have already been done to isolate key issues, rather than just getting them to grapple with the issues and work on ideas to deal with them. I agree that this is better discussed elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There are good arguments for including information about money. (I've made them for years and years now.) There are no good arguments for reading a source that gives you the average unit price for a single country and writing on Wikipedia that the one country's price is the price throughout the entire developing world. Although that has happened in some articles, it did not happen because someone sat down one day and said, "You know what? The best thing for Wikipedia would be for me to take this single data point about 1% of the world's population, and claim that it's how things are for 80% of the world's population, because concision matters more than accuracy". These were not intentional choices. Nobody was trying to do that. Editors were just trying to do their best, with the limited resources they had at that particular moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding one sides original research to the background section isn't neutral. Using one example as a basis for judging the entire group isn't neutral. The tone of the background is that something "serious must be done" which is not neutral. Of course you can multiply three numbers and get a prime number in fact every prime number has an infinite number of inverse pairs they can be multiplied by to make a prime number AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Noticing that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 is not "one sides original research". Everyone else has already agreed that is just plain incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And do the links you added only say ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 or do they have more text and research at them? Are you claiming the research wasn't done by one side of the debate? Are you claiming you are not using this research to implie the prices are broadly incorrect in the background text? Are you ever going to explain what prime numbers have to do with anything?AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

2,777 is the 404th prime number. If you multiply three numbers and end up with a prime, you should check your work. I cannot imagine why you would even bother trying to defend this error. Anyone with a calculator can discover that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=27.675}$. That's what should have been in the article, not $27.77, assuming you're going to use that database record with that method.

I don't know which links you're talking about, but I can tell you that multiple people, on at least three different pages, over the space of two months, have been begging for examples of high-quality, well-sourced drug prices in our articles, and nobody has been able to find a single example in any article about a small-molecule generic drug that held up under even a moderate amount of scrutiny. I wrote originally that many (N.B.: "many", not "all" or "most") of the examples in a specific list were "outdated or otherwise incorrect". Doc James changed the statement later, but I'm still comfortable with what I wrote. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing that all (or almost all) of the examples in that specific list are both up to date and also entirely accurate. Even providing a single really solid example of the ideal way to source and describe this type of content would be helpful. Nobody else has been able to do it yet, but you seem to be really confident that it can be done.

BTW, when you're talking about "sides", you really ought to count me on the pro-inclusion side. I've been encouraging the inclusion of a wide variety of financial content in medical articles for many years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually anyone with a calculator would know that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=2.7675}$ not 27.675. Also if you could tell me how ${\textstyle 5\times 10\times .1=5}$ is wrong I would appreciate it. Or are you saying that 5 is not a prime number? AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If you're still looking to line up some help closing, I'd be willing to be part of a panel if you need me. I haven't participated in the previous RfC and don't have plans to participate in the upcoming one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, so far no one has raised their hand and I appreciate you doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A problem of logic: the ANI concluded that a) we needed an RFC on pricing, and b) we needed an admin to concur it was neutral before launch. In the course of looking for an example of an article with policy-compliant drug pricing (excluding NOTPRICE) that could be used in that RFC, separate problems were uncovered, such that no example was found, leading to this different RFC, to be followed by that RFC on pricing in general. We posted to the No Original Research noticeboard, and got not a single response about the concerns raised, hence we need to go to the community for feedback. We have a problem that has to be sorted by the community regardless of what we eventually do with that RFC on pricing. This RFC is not that RFC, and interpreting the ANI to read that we can not now or ever independently address a separate issue without meeting the "neutral admin" requirement is overly strict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Conduct concerns around MOS:MED and WP:MED

In the last month I have witnessed sincere efforts by all involved to put the past aside and work together. Despite these efforts, what had been a fragile peace immediately following the ANI discussion has not held. Over the last 10 days or so there have been a steady number of behavioral concerns brought forward by a number of editors about any number of other editors. We're at a point where some sanctions are probably required and I have directed the two most recent people towards WP:Arbitration Enforcement. However, not all the misconduct is of the type that fits with the strengths of AE which is why an Arbitration Case has been mooted by multiple people. I write here in the hopes that can be avoided either through additional uninvolved sysops taking interest in the topic or through community discussion and consensus to resolve the conduct concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wish for Wikipedia discussions to be friendly and objective. All sorts of editors, including newcomers, should feel welcome and invited at Wikipedia. There is a negative and antagonistic environment at WikiProject Medicine right now which I wish to reduce to eliminate. I want people to express themselves in a positive way and avoid expressing themselves in a negative way. There is no particular Wikipedia protocol for determining what is a good versus bad environment, but I wish we had one, and I wish that we could apply it. As a human I can identify words which are negative and hostile, and I can see when certain user accounts use those words more frequently, and it might be the case that some user accounts use hostile negative word choices very frequently in many conversations. I wish that such accounts could get guidance to be more objective and less emotional, because Wikipedia discussions ought to be on the basis of merit of the arguments and not on emotional rhetoric. I appreciate Barkeep49's mediation here, but the situation is growing. If we were all together in a physical workplace then the human resource department would bring in a social worker to provide emotional mediation at this point. We have no such equivalent in place in Wikipedia and I wish that we did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh, I have almost the opposite view. There's been a certain amount of bickering. That should have been expected, since this is a family fight. But I've found good information and good views, and I'd say that on average, the more "emotional" the editor, the more useful feedback they gave me.
    Also, my advice for improving Wikipedia's culture wouldn't involve telling people that the best way to communicate with humans is to be objective and unemotional (wow, what a culture-specific notion) or to think about individual words. If you are afraid that that there may be some significant math-and-statistics-type errors in a few hundred high-traffic articles, then "being positive" doesn't sound appropriate. Sure, there's no need for profanity (and there has been basically none of that), but good Wikipedia editors should ring the alarm bells when they think that hundreds of articles might have serious errors. "Word choice" isn't where the tension comes from here. Recognizing that a respected, experienced Wikipedian really does fundamentally disagree with you about what Wikipedia ought to be is where the tension comes from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WAID that the tension is probably healthy all things considered. Has the conflict that's resulted from that tension always been healthy? I think the answer to that is no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, WAID right again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed she is. As is so often the case, she is a breath of fresh air and sunshine around this place. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Help us, uninvolved admin, you're our only hope!

Carrie Fisher would've been proud of that subsection heading. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wanted: uninvolved administrators to assist with the MOS RfC discussed above in this thread. The lucky administrators who volunteer for this task will be rewarded in the following ways:

• Fame, fortune, and glory, beyond all human comprehension
• Your name whispered reverently for generations to come
• Temples built in your honor

Actually, you'll get none of these things. But, this is a content dispute that has the potential to affect many, many articles, and they're medical articles, which for obvious reasons are particularly important to get right for our readers, and it's a situation where the pressure resulting from the content dispute gridlock is generating conduct disputes between highly experienced veteran editors. One has already resigned (which everyone is hoping will be just a wikibreak). The foolish brave admin who closed the ANI thread that preceded this has been doing a stand-up job, but it's really unfair to put all this on one person's shoulders. Barkeep49's talk page is quite active, and in my opinion, they could use help from additional administrators, both for Barkeep's sake (so that they're not held singularly responsible for the outcome of this RfC, nor for "policing" it), and also for the sake of ensuring that the outcome is credible, broadly accepted, and not subject to future claims of an unfair process. This could really use a panel of admin if possible, but at least one more to help take some of the load off of Barkeep's shoulders. So if any admin could swing by Barkeep's talk page and ask how they can help, you'd be doing a huge service not just for your colleagues but also for our readers. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We asked for help 11 days ago, and we've still had zero responses from admins. Levivich is correct that the budget doesn't run to temples built in your honor, but the following barnstar is offered to any admin who resists the bystander effect, spends five minutes reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and tells us whether it sounds neutral to you. That's all you need to do: click it, read it, and post here.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For responding when we needed an uninvolved admin to read an RFC before launching it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what we'll do if no admin chooses to look at this. ANI said to find an admin before starting the RFC, but we can't make you volunteer to do it. Maybe just invoke WP:IAR, on the grounds that we've made multiple requests for review, and no admin has (yet) told us that it's not neutral? I'd really rather have someone look at it, though. Please be that person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, we could launch an RfC: "Is this RfC question neutral?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Levivich 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, My watchlist notice is showing that we have three admin candidates going through RfA right now with >90% support. How about asking each of them to be the panel? One almost-admin should be good enough to meet the spirit of the requirement; two or three would be even better. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot, we need two things:

1. Any single admin to spend five minutes reading the question and deciding whether it's a "neutral" question (i.e., not an obviously biased question; RFC standards for neutrality are lower than NPOV standards for Featured Articles). Biased questions are fairly rare in RFCs, but a couple of times a year, someone who is worried that his side is "losing" makes a big stink about the question. It usually amounts to "It must be biased, because otherwise everyone would agree with me!" I don't think that's a likely response from any of the experienced editors in this case, but I can respect the request as a gesture to ward off drama.
2. Some poor sucker(s) to read everything sometime during February, and to write a closing summary. This is a much bigger request. It is also not a request that I'm making, and unless the result is very simple and obvious, I'm not sure that I'd want to inflict on a new admin. I don't want them to quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved admin that has read the discussion in this section, both RfC proposals and skimmed the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Ready,_steady,_go, I think that some minor revisions to RfC 1 should make it unimpeachably neutral. I think that the "In the real world" and "What we've got on wiki" sections should be removed, and can be raised as actual arguments in the discussion. I don't think that the question statement at the beginning has any neutrality issues. I think that the listed examples of drug pricing are both useful and neutrally presented, but I could see how editors could object to potential cherrypicking of examples. Thus, I think that if editors object to the current selection of examples, we could use a random number generator to choose three new example drugs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Rosguill thanks for looking. I think that before any fact-based sections are removed, we need to consider if there is content in them that is contentious, biased or leading in a way that isn't neutral. I think the fact have had had a dispute over drug prices since October (and documented issues of prices being removed and restored for may years) that "Editors have raised concerns about prices being outdated or having other problems" is undeniably a fact, and why we are here. It would be wrong to suggest this RFC sprang out of nowhere or suppress that faults with prices have been found, or hide that nearly all prices are now five years old. I think the link to User:Colin/ExistingPrices hugely important (I have offered to move it to another namespace). It quickly helps editors see 530 drug prices in article text, without having to try to lookup some random drug and find the relevant text. It also helps avoid accusations of cherry picking examples, because editors are welcome to pick from others for discussion. A good reason for moving those sections into "argument in the discussion" might be that the text was biased or rationally disputed. A bad reason would be simply that one editor wants facts removed, because they don't help their case. We have at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Polishing the draft a request for editors involved to argue for adding or removing text from the draft and those who have in the past raised an issue have not responded. Perhaps someone could ping Doc James to request his involvement in arguing for final changes to the draft.

Wrt any objection over the examples chosen, I'm not aware any objection has been made, and they were carefully chosen to represent different issues that editors may want to discuss. I think randomly picking ones would be a bad idea and less likely to lead to three useful examples. For example, diazepam has many indications and doses and formulations from tablets to injections, whereas ethosuximide has one indication and usually taken by tablet. The unit of each three examples are different (per day, per month, per dose). One example gives a price range and the others do not (and they do not for different reasons). -- Colin°^Talk 09:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I don't dispute that it is a fact that editors have raised concerns with the drug prices, but I think it could be considered a leading question to highlight that for readers in the opening prompt. In my experience, RfCs rarely open with a nuanced background of the conflict, but rather cut straight to the chase (e.g. "Do you prefer A or B in section Q", "Should the following paragraph X be added to the lead"). As for User:Colin/ExistingPrices I agree that it is a very useful resource, but am concerned that due to your involvement in the debate, editors who disagree with your position in general may cry foul if the page is given what is essentially an endorsement from the RfC framing (as at least one already has). Finally, regarding the examples, if no one has objected then we don't need to do a random draw, I just wanted to leave that option out there in case I missed something from a relevant side-discussion.

As a side note regarding a comment made by WAID above, I'm not sure that RfC neutrality standards are comparable to NPOV in articles (featured or otherwise). An article needs to report the consensus of reliable sources with attention to due weight, whereas I think it's reasonable to expect an RfC to stake out a totally neutral ground between the disputing positions, regardless of the level of support a priori. Moreover, the prime concern in RfC framing is to avoid leading questions, which aren't really a thing that exists in an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thanks for pitching in (and congrats on the tools). On the idea of needing other samples, some background might help. I have been asking for examples for six weeks, and none where drug price text appears to comply with policies other than NOT (meaning V, NOR, WEIGHT) have surfaced. Discussions are long, but you can see here and here (where one sample is off by at least a factor of two, and the next random sample thrown out was off by a factor of 100). So, I suggest we have good enough samples, and after six weeks, nothing else is likely to surface.

Another factor to be aware of is that about a dozen editors worked for a month through the holidays to put together an RFC, with a couple more editors appearing only in January.

I'd like to suggest, though, another area where Barkeep49 deserves more help. He has been the only admin trying to corral this mess, and has taken unnecessary heat and criticism, even after being a very fair moderator. He has had to ask several editors to walk back some comments here and there, and almost everyone has complied, yet having taken no extreme admin actions, he is nonetheless criticized unfairly, IMO. It would be most helpful if you, and other admins, would follow the discussions closely to pitch in as needed. I specifically suggest looking at this very moderate suggestion in relation to what is going on here, and whether there is any "poisoning of the well" occurring. Also, this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thanks for your reply. I think the only objection possible to User:Colin/ExistingPrices is that it is in my userspace and hence I have some privilege over editing rights, and I'm happy to move it if that helps. One editor objected to it on the grounds that I created it, which imo is the very definition of a personal attack (contributor vs content). The actual content was not created by me and is simply an automated extraction of article text written, mostly by one other editor. I really do protect most strongly to censorship of existing drug prices on such objectional grounds. Let's agree whether the content of that page is a fair extraction of 500+ drug prices on articles, and leave aside who's name is on the history contrib list. Appeasing those who make personal attacks is not neutrality. I don't think we should place weight on attacks on the RFC have no content-based or rational justification.

Wrt whether the RFC should up-front note that some editors have raised concerns, there are pros and cons to both inclusion and suppression of this incontestable fact. To "cut to the chase" as it were, and hide the fact that there are problems with the text and sources, is biased towards mainly considering whether Wikipedia should (ideally) include drug prices, rather than whether Wikipedia can (practically) include drug prices. We've compromised an awful lot. Anyway, that's my 2p and it's WAID's RFC so I'm leaving it to them to agree to cuts or not. I think the current very very tame note that "some editors have raised concerns" is extremely watered down from what could be said. Like "Wikipedia's drug prices are essentially random numbers and the original research that invented them would make any high school statistics teacher faint with mortification". -- Colin°^Talk 22:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the formulation of the RfC is per ANI consensus really best done at WT:MEDMOS and so I will be posting my reply there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not an admin. Gave my two cents. Hope it helps. Buffs (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Um, Buffs, you entered a statement on an RFC that has not been launched. Perhaps you can remove it, and wait for the RFC to open? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok...Here's what I wrote. Feel free to put it where it needs to go:

Well, you asked for an opinion, so here it goes...

The problem I see with this is WP:NOTPRICES. Neutral view or not, it cannot override policy.

"An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."

Accordingly, I don't see a reason to override policy here. If we're going to include prices (which is an inherently political issue when it comes to medicine), it's just plain too unclear to be accurate. I can't see a single instance where such a quote wouldn't have to have an in-depth explanation. The only instance I can see its inclusion would be where the price was in the news for some reason (very high or very low). Moreover, per policy, it doesn't belong here. Without addressing this issue at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not, neutrally phrased or not, such a change to this guideline cannot override a policy. Anyway, you asked for an opinion.

(adding here) Moreover, the breadth of this RFC is immense and I don't think you'll be able to clearly establish a consensus based on discussion anyway. This level of bureaucracy is what's driving away editors. People want to add prices to articles on medicine. Fine. After LOTS of discussion, an admin simply needs to say yes or no and end this. An RfC for 2-3 more months is insane levels of bureaucracy. Buffs (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The normal course of action (a post to the NOR noticeboard) received zero feedback. Admins are not empowered to determine content disputes any more than regular editors, so the only course left is an RFC on the text--> source integrity concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators have no special powers over content decisions. Consensus is at the heart of our project. I'm not willing to dispute your overall assessment of our bureaucracy though I've been puzzled how we pare it back down given that each additional piece of bureucracy had some reason for which it had broad community support before it was enacted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RfPP

is a little backed up. If anyone would care to join me, I'll start at the bottom.-- Deepfriedokra 04:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all.-- Deepfriedokra 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again, over 30 requests, current backlog is about 15 hours--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial Blocks PSA

Hello all. Being that the Partial Blocks feature is now deployed, be careful that you don't accidentally use it to create a block that does nothing. On the block interface, "Editing" and "Sitewide" must be checked, unless you intend to do a partial block. If you uncheck "Editing", or check "Partial" without entering any pages to be blocked, then you will have created a block that does not stop the user/IP from editing. You can see a list of all partial blocks, if you want to make sure that there are no "null blocks" or otherwise unintentional partial blocks. If "editing" is not listed in the "block parameters" column, then the block does not prevent editing. ST47 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no policy-based reason to issue a partial block right now. Is that correct? –xeno^talk 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That, I'm not clear on. The RfC was closed with a result that broadly allows partial blocks. That should be written into policy, but in the mean time, I wouldn't have a problem with someone issuing a partial block in a way that is consistent with that RfC. ST47 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What a great question! There was an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks) and I'm still not clear on if the result is that administrators must not, or may, use a partial block. @JJMC89: closed the RfC. I know I was on the side of not enabling this technical feature without a policy - but the majority were not. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see they wrote "Community consensus is not required to apply partial blocks. Administrators may apply partial blocks using their discretion, in line with the Wikipedia:Blocking policy". –xeno^talk 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I added two of the explicit RfC uses to the blocking policy. Further changes are needed though. Partial blocks may be used with admin discretion within the parameters of the blocking policy. I expect that a second RfC (if one is held) plus common and failed uses will inform future changes to policy. For those concerned about the lack of governing policy, I urge you to start a second RfC to discuss any changes that you want to see. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately the default is a "sitewide" block, so you'd have to change something on the block form to impose a partial block. It's annoying because now the block form is longer, but whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot believe that we have yet encountered the universe in which Bbb23 does partial blocks :D ——SN54129 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocks via Twinkle appear to proceed as before. Partial blocks don't appear to be an option when blocking via Twinkle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Amorymeltzer is on it, so it'll be there soon. You can use the {{subst:Uw-pblock}} in the meantime and use the |area= parameter to list pblock details and |email= if it is a email pblock. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Can the template be reworded? Although no-one expects a template to have FA-worthy prose, You have been partially blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges is one of the worse sentences ever. "Partially blocked" implies the block itself is somehow incomplete, whereas, of course, they're wholly blocked from specific areas. Suggest something like: "For abuse of editing privileges, you have been temporarilly blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia", or somesuch. ——SN54129 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I've implemented your suggestion. The long-term issue is, ofc the name of the feature, so not many ways to get around it. The current |area= parameter would also fit in nicely with your suggested sentence. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also if you want to hide the ability to partial block from Special:Block and keep things as before you can follow the steps at User:AntiCompositeNumber/Hiding partial blocks. I’m assuming twinkle will have a way to keep the classic block screen as well? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  Mostly I would suspect, the ideal way would be a radio button switch. @Amorymeltzer: has all the top-secret blueprints. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  I was more thinking like a button in twinkle preferences that would either enable/disable the partial block functionality, but these things are beyond me :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  In all likelihood it will be a single little checkbox, off by default, that if checked will change the form. Nothing much will change from how it is now unless you opt for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category whitelist request

Hello! I would like "Category:Minecraft servers" to be whitelisted. I want to put this category under "Category:Minecraft", and add the articles 2b2t, Hypixel, and Mineplex to the category. I am also planning on creating an article called "Minecraft servers," which I've been working on in my sandbox for a few months, which will also be added to that category. (I will have to get that article name whitelisted as well) —  Melofors  TC  00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

By whitelisting you mean MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist? I don't understand why it's blacklisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out - the item was blacklisted globally at meta:Title blacklist. I've added an entry on the whitelist and modified the error message so that people know that the global blacklist can trigger it as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Melofors: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Was it actually necessary to whitelist it? The blacklist entry doesn't seem to be marked with "noedit", so I think an admin or pagemover could have just moved the mentioned sandbox page to that title and then it would be able to be edited normally. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, a false positive case is better dealt with through one-time whitelisting rather than asking people to override it each time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Help wanted from everyone who has the time

A massive (the largest ever) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, was recently opened. The usual 3 people at CCI won't be able to complete it themselves, so I am asking everyone who has the time to help clean it up. No copyright knowledge is required, and instructions + further information can be found at User:Money emoji/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup. I will also be listing this at WP:CENT, as the last time a large scale CCI cleanup effort was conducted (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo), it was listed there. A big thanks to all who sign up, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to go through all the pages now, but at some point Dr. Blofeld created a couple of thousand pages about districts of Russia. This was done in collaboration with the Wikiproject, and I was involved. There is no copyvio there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Dr. Blofeld whose assistance—in terms of background knowledge—in this area could be...forensic, to say the least. ——SN54129 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, his assistance would definitely be appreciated. He is not needed now, as the current focus of the project is to get rid of the vast amounts of non-copyrightable material strewn about the CCI, but once that is all taken care of, his help in possibly identifying when the copying occurred would be extremely appreciated.💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why you think I'm a serial violator in the first place @Money emoji:. This is basically like mowing down a whole cornfield just to find a couple of needles... I guess you'll have to find out the hard way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'm not going into this with the mindset we'll find much. In fact, this cleanup effort was created with the intention of removing the thousands of stubs that contain non-copyrightable prose from the listing, so the people who are in the know regarding copyright can figure out what to do with the remaining articles (likely to be under 300). As someone who primarily edits in the copyright field of wikipedia, I am aware that most of these stubs contain nothing actionable, and therefore they will not be deleted. Furthermore, I am not going to have your other articles presumptively deleted, because I would like to collaborate with you in figuring out the status of articles which contain sources not readily accessible to me, which there are not many of (1% of listed articles). I don't think you're a serial violator (If you were, wikipedia would have died), and I also don't care whether or not you or Fram are vindicated as a result of the project. I simply care about decreasing the monstrous backlog at CCI. I do not want our working relationship to be that of enemies, but rather friends, for the benefit of the entire project. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand and I'm not commenting in annoyance but as the issue is likely to be extremely minimal it just seems a little unnecessary, if you wanted to block out the short stubs why didn't you use a bot?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's the problem; a script to cull the listings was already run, and it removed about 60% of the content. Now the humans have to do the work.💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The first days' results are very encouraging; at this rate the first phase of the project will only take 2-3 weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My restrictions

I was wondering of someone could tell me what editing restrictions I am still subject to. There apparently is a Tea Party movement restriction of some sort, which was extended to a topic ban on American Politics, with that restriction being reduced to 1RR/week (with removing spam, as well as vandalism, excluded), and there's a Gun control topic ban, which I'm planning to appeal for reduction of. Are there any other restrictions I should be aware of?

For that matter, is there a centralized board for editing restrictions, or should there be? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There is one at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which mentions the Tea Party movement topic ban. The Gun control topic ban isn't logged there but at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Both of them appear to be still in force. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think those 2 cover it for the OP. There only seems to be those 2 restrictions. AFAICT, the 1RR per week is only for the tea party movement not the entire post 1932 American politics space. But especially for the benefit of others, my read is there are several main places you probably should check out. If you start at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, it has arbcom and community imposed restrictions.

However it notes that:

Inactive accounts have been moved to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive.

That page confirms that it's for restrictions which are nominally still in force, but the editor has either been blocked or inactive for a long time. Editors should be move back to the main list when active but I would imagine this doesn't always happen especially for editors who simply went inactive.

Then if you go down, it notes that:

From January 2015, sanctions imposed by an administrator in accordance with an arbitration remedy (including discretionary sanctions) are recorded at the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. This includes the discretionary sanctions authorized for biographies of living persons.

However if you check out that page, it notes:

An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force.

Fortunately there is a search bar there to help you find any restrictions more than 5 years old.

Finally if you scroll down even more on the editing restrictions page, there is a section for final warnings and unblock conditions. This notes:

These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator in accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking. Restrictions may be logged here but must be logged as a permalink or diff in the unblock log.

This is a bit confusing since I don't think final warnings require an editor to be blocked first. But then again final warnings are a bit of an odd duck since they're not really a restriction or something that can be appealed. If they aren't logged there I guess they may be forgotten about over time. But you should check your block log for any unblock condition.

If you check these 4 places, I think you're fairly safe. But noting of course that if you're aware of a restriction, the community is not likely to take kindly to an editor ignoring it simply because it wasn't properly logged. By comparison, an editor who notes the mistake will probably get at least some minor brownie points.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR version, I think any restriction should be on one of the several pages Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log or in the individual year if more than 5 years old (use the search bar there to help you find them, for the OP [1]) and your block log ([2] for the OP but I can't provide a general link AFAIK). Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikihow

Please can the admin add wikihow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.142.75 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Add it to what? WikiHow isn't a Wikimedia project and therefore isn't affiliated with us in any way, so we have no business referring people to it from this site. Deor (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for User:Magherbin

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

---

Magherbin was blocked in April 2019 as a checkuser block as a result of this SPI report. They have made several unblock requests at their talk page, which has been largely ignored. At their request via the IRC unblock channel, I am copying their request here. They have admitted on their talk page to operating the following accounts:

• Magherbin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Betamhara (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kikolio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lokiszm7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Do not let the size of that SPI archive fool you. This user was only checkuser-confirmed to the list of accounts above, and was found to be  Unlikely to the rest of that SPI archive. In fact, there appear to be at least six separate sockmasters who had SPI cases filed under that name. Again, there is no technical reason to believe that this user is Middayexpress. I have done a CheckUser just now, and there is no evidence of recent sockpuppetry either. I asked them to explain why they created sockpupped before, and why we can now trust them not to do so again, here is their response:

My intention was to improve the encyclopedia by garnering opinions from the wider community ex; using RFC's, third opinion etc; see [3], [4]. Many of the articles related to the Horn of Africa either have misleading information or sometimes just made up facts hence I felt that I needed to correct them without harassment from editors by opening another account. After a dispute was resolved with an editor, [5] he/she immediately requested checkuser against me and I believe i'm probably the only user that is actively attempting to improve articles in this field hence why the user suspected I was abusing multiple accounts. I have realized that my block was due to abusing multiple accounts therefore I will keep all Wikipedia edits under this account moving forward to avoid any sock incidents, since the incident I caused would have been avoided altogether if I had kept one account. The reviewers must understand that I have no reason to use multiple accounts ever again. I am not here to vandalize any pages on the encyclopedia except to sincerely improve the articles, the contributions I have made so far is proof of that. I will give permission to have my account reviewed by admins regulalry to show my commitment.
— User:Magherbin

There are some earlier unblock requests on their talk page as well, which may have some more information. Since it has been more than six months since their block, should they be unblocked under the Standard Offer? For what it's worth, I would support an unblock, as they do not seem to have been continuing to sock, they seem to have reasonable intentions to improve the wiki if they are unblocked, and as per WP:ROPE. Pinging @Bbb23:, as the original blocking CU. ST47 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock under WP:SO. It's good that they have plans for areas where they want to contribute. Schazjmd (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock based off ST47's words and WP:ROPE. Though I'm not sure we'd want to create a parole system where users requesting unblocks had to allow unlimited CUs on their account, so best to turn that offer by the applicant down, I think, even if it were permitted. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock with an indefinite one-account restriction. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support unblock. Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and the community will realise that there is no reason for the user to engage in sockpuppetry moving forward. As they had explained, they only made use of sockpuppetry to avoid being targeted based on username alone. Of course, if they do that again, or if there is any suspicion, they'll simply be reported and blocked indefinitely. I doubt anyone would willingly want to get indef-blocked after months of dedication to upholding this very block. They're not a sock spammer, and they are not an agenda pusher. As per Wikipedia:NOPUNISH, users may be blocked or unblocked only for the benefit of the community and not to simply punish the user for past deeds. In this case, there is little benefit gained by keeping the user blocked. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Drafts duplicating existing articles

Would an admin mind taking a look at Draft:Jewel of the Nile (album) and Draft:The Jewel of the Nile (1985 film)? Articles about these two subjects already exist as Jewel of the Nile and The Jewel of the Nile and the drafts just seem to have been created by an IP account to try and move the existing articles to new titles for the purpose of turning "Jewel of the Nile" into a DAB page; see Talk:Jewel of the Nile#I copied the pages exactly and added a disambiguation page and the page history for Jewel of the Nile for more details on that. I don't think a DAB page is really needed here per WP:ONEOTHER, but new drafts shouldn't be created to try and MOVE articles even if such a page is needed. These are drafts so I don't think WP:A10 applies, but I'm not sure if they need to go to WP:MFD or can be tagged per WP:G6 or WP:G14. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nasty expletives need redaction

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

---

• 49.15.77.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

vandal IP has already been blocked. Please also redact their entire contribution history per WP:CRD #2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. As they are posting nasty expletives in Hindi language.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus for hiding the above, there is one more IP (same user) below,

• 106.67.106.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --DBigXray 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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

106.67.3.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We have another IP with same edits. Jo-Jo Eumerus or any other admin. Please revdel the contributions.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

They are gone and the IP is blocked. Perhaps some kind of filter is warranted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The good folks at WP:EF may be able to set something up for you. I have always found them quite helpful. --Jayron32 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has blocked the last IP as a WP:LTA. So I would support an edit filter. Jo-Jo Eumerus are you taking this forward to get the filter ready? Also ping User:Zzuuzz--DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Expletives in Hindi in edit summaries & page content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Celia Homeford keeps undoing my edits to List of current pretenders and even undoing edits made by previous users before I started working on the page, all the information I add is verifiable but she keeps undoing the edits before I have a chance to provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisnallmarty (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to avoid this happening then cite your sources at the same time as adding content. Sources are not an afterthought. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you can source any of that material. Per WP:CIRCULAR, you can't source pages on wikipedia from other pages on wikipedia. You need independent, third-party reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You haven't notified Celia. As explained at the top of this page and in the page notice, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Special:Import

Hello! I have started an RfC over at VPP regarding adding commons as a wiki source to Special:Import. Feel free to comment over there! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Turkey's Wikipedia ban lifted

I don't know if this has been reported elsewhere but see Wikipedia is back online in Turkey after two-year ban is overturned.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey_lifted.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's some excellent news. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they had about 16,000 new users create accounts yesterday, and people who haven't edited from years are back in their old accounts. This might be a good time to be nice to your favorite m:global sysop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

See also the Wikimedia announcement Access to Wikipedia restored in Turkey after more than two and a half years.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

There have been a few unblock requests sitting there for over three weeks that require a decision from an uninvolved admin. Thanks in advance. MER-C 19:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The ones I'm not involved in, I try to use Template:decline stale if nobody including me decided to act within two weeks. This may be useful if you are a reviewing admin and... can't decide one way or another, but don't want to let the unblock request remain open indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I managed one but the documentation desperately needs improving to tell newbies like me what to copy/paste with suitable editing. One problem I saw was that {{unblock}} shows text implying that Template:Accept reason here can be used but that page has never existed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In case it inspires anyone, here are the notes I made for my personal use:

Reviewing an unblock request:
    {{unblock|reason=XXX}}
Change above to one of following:
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline=REASON. ~~~~}}
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline={{subst:decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|accept=REASON. ~~~~}}

I hope that's right! Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Note! If you click the [show] link in the "Administrator use only" section at the bottom of the unblock request, you get a set of options you can copy-and-paste to accept or decline the unblock request. If the unblock request is essentially free of content, just using the default decline, the one that looks like {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline={{subst:decline reason here}} ~~~~}}, will paste in a default decline message. Or you can write your own message! --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category created by mistake

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

---

Excuse my distraction, I thought I was on Commons and by mistake created here the category Naturalized citizens by country. Would you please delete it? Thanks and my apologies again. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

AfD discussions that are fully protected from the get-go

Last month, there was an AfD on the Kyle Kulinski page.[6] The AfD saw insane amounts of canvassed votes, as the subject of the article and some fringe-left forums directed people to the AfD discussion. The closer concluded that there was "no consensus" and suggested that we might re-do the AfD and have it protected from the get-go to avoid interference from outside actors. Would it be possible for an admin to start such an AfD or to immediately protect it after I myself start one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur with a new AfD being fully protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You want an AFD only admins can participate in? Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected from IPs. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's semi protection not full protection. (Well close to it. There's no such thing as only protecting from IPs.) It may be helpful to check out Wikipedia:Protection policy#Types of protection especially if you are going to comment at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that's correct. Concerning registered editors, how do we determine who's been canvassed off Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not using the correct language here: the amount of protection needed to prevent IP numbers and very recent accounts with few edits from participating?. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is fine as you didn't ask for full protection. It was not possible to clearly indicate I was replying to GoodDay since they failed to follow normal WP:Indenting rules. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know when this happens. KidAd (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for being grumpy above, it mostly came about because I made a significant mistake myself. I conflated Kyle Kulinski with the similarly named Kyle Kashuv. Given what I've read before, I felt an AfD on Kashuv would either be keep or at most no consensus. Therefore it seemed a waste of time to open yet another AfD. Still if the previous one was tainted by canvassing and an editor genuinely felt there was chance of reaching a consensus to delete, I also couldn't object to the suggestion. I see now my error and can understand the desire to open another AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Having reviewed the situation, I agree that a fresh AfD is appropriate and it should be semi-protected from the beginning, because of the history of canvassing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting older, waiting for AFD-in-question to be opened. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle and speedies

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, it seems to me that perhaps we should ask the Twinkle devs to change the default for TW/CSD to "tag only" unless there's an existing CSD template. We should probably not summarily delete by default - there's no reason not to invite a second admin to review before an article is nuked, especially since we could simply uncheck the delete box for egregious cases such as attack pages. Guy (help!) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this topic at WT:CSD, for which there was no consensus for such a thing (if not consensus against the idea). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Izno, consensus there is that an admin is allowed to delete without tagging. That doesn't answer the question: is it a good idea, and certainly not the question: should it be the default. Best practice should be that no article is nuked without two sets of eyes, unless it's blindingly obvious, abuse cleanup or whatever. Guy (help!) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing the Twinkle default on this is an excellent idea. While tagging should not be required (as I also said at WT:CSD), our standard tool should encourage it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ricky81682 unblocked

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ricky81682 unblocked

Oldstone James creationism topic ban appeal

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

---

Appeal by user

As simple as that, I should not really have been banned in the first place. This is a comment I posted to the closing administrator in reaction to getting my topic ban 9 months ago:

1. I hadn't even been warned that I might be topic-banned, and so I wasn't even given a chance to prove that a ban might not be necessary. Once the topic ban proposal was posted on ANI, I immediately made it clear that I had changed my behaviour (see 3.) and won't be disruptive from then on.
2. The topic ban was proposed straight after my block had expired, and I had barely done any editing in the meantime. I had not violated any policy which warrants a block, such as WP:3RR, and the only edit-warring (2 non-BRD reverts) that did take place was a result of my misunderstanding of what a self-revert is: I had immediately admitted that I was wrong. Furthermore, while of course not a justification, these only reverted an edit that had absolutely no consensus at the time. Other than that, I showed signs that I had learnt from my block and had taken on advice given to me by other users (such as taking to the talk page before reinstating my edit and not assuming consensus even if I believe it is there ([7] – note how this is a reversion to WP:STATUSQUO and not to my preferred version).
3. I had demonstrated on numerous occasions that I was willing to listen to what others editors had to say, and I also demonstrated my desire to become a better editor. I accepted almost every advice that I was given since the ANI post. Here are some examples:

• "The advice here to you is, in essence, to disengage" by user:Guettarda on WP:ANI, referring to the edits I made on Answers in Genesis. Since that comment, the only two edits I made on the page were adding a comma and a hyphen. I have also now gotten myself voluntarily blocked in order to disengage from edits on all pages.
• [8] Related, this advice by user:jps is to "take a breather from Wikipedia". This was the main reason for my self-requested block: I realised I was spending too much time on Wikipedia, while I had lots of real-life work to do.
• "...my point is about general approach, that making a clear statement on what you are willing to commit to is more effective than debating what you have said previously or how earlier comments should have been taken" by user:EdChem on my Talk Page, referring in part to this comment by Guy Macon. My reply was "I will try this approach as well" to EdChem, and my reply to Guy Macon included "I will not claim consensus ever again", but I have also adopted this approach in other comments.
• "ANI sees the Tu quoque fallacy a lot -- most recently by Oldstone James -- and will not allow anyone else's behavior to excuse bad behavior" and "And anyway, Yeah, but they're just as bad! is just about as weak an argument you can make... so don't make it" by Guy Macon and jps, respectively on WP:ANI. My reply to the latter's comment included "I've already stomached the fact that tu quoque isn't going to help my case" and "That's just my position - not an argument. Never said stating this position is a good idea" (admitting my tu-quoque-based position was never a good idea). I hadn't resorted to tu quoque since.

I can provide numerous other examples (feel free to demand them from me) of me taking on the advice of others and acting on said advice, admitting my mistakes, and showing my intention to become a better editor, but I think that would render this already long comment Tl;DR. My argument here is not even that I wasn't even given a chance to redeem myself – it's that I wasn't given a chance to redeem myself, then dug that chance out for myself, and did my best to take it, and yet all my efforts were still ignored. Note how even if I was simply promising that I would stop without any evidence to back that up, the best approach would sometimes be to give me the benefit of the doubt as per WP:ROPE – let alone when there is also a fair amount of evidence for that promise being genuine. Please recall that bans and blocks "serve to protect the project from harm and reduce likely future problems" – NOT to punish users (WP:NOPUNISH).

1. (4.) Why topic-ban me? Every single one of the edits brought up at ANI was in relation to my edits on one single page, and these edits did not display any obvious POV relating to creationism. Wouldn't a WP:PBAN hence be more appropriate? Why creationism? This decision seems very arbitrary to me.

So most of my evidence that I had changed as an editor is just a continuation of the evidence that I provided 9 months ago.

For example, I haven't engaged in a single act of edit-warring since the topic ban (i.e. violated the BRD cycle, for example). One example of where I chose to give up my editing in an area where I was confident that I was correct because of a lack of consensus is the article scientific racism. Here is the discussion of my proposed edits, where it can be seen that I remained firm in my position. Nevertheless, after a few proposed compromises (1 and 2), I gave up and moved on to other topics. It's important to note also, before anyone else points out, that in this instance I was NOT arguing in favour of scientific racism (as the ungrounded belief that genetics are responsible for the difference in IQ across different ethnic groups would constitute), which is indeed WP:FRINGE; instead, I was arguing in favour of content that already exists and is well-sourced on other Wikipedia articles (for example, Race and intelligence), so WP:FRINGE shouldn't be relevant to the discussion, especially given that I am an opponent of the very topic that I was topic-banned on (creationism).

Also, despite the ban, I remained relatively active on Wikipedia and managed to edit successfully on other articles. Some examples are this edit and [9], which prove my dedication to improving Wikipedia as a whole and not just fixating on one topic (surprising that I even need to prove this, given the edits that led to my topic ban were some of the first creationism-related topics that I had ever made). Other edits can be seen through my contributions page; note that I did violate the topic ban regulation on a few occasions, but after I was reminded of that by jps, I thanked him and immediately stopped editing in inappropriate areas.

Hopefully, the community can evaluate my behaviour and eventually get the topic ban lifted. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

!Voting

• Oppose. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is genius. Concise and to the point. I love this. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Thank you for providing the links, JBL. Having looked into this, I feel that both sides have good points. However, I think James deserves a second chance, and has potential to provide a lot of effective contributions. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per I should not really have been banned in the first place, which suggests that nothing has been learned and the issues that led to the topic ban have not been accepted, let alone addressed. Guy (help!) 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. See my reasoning in the "comments and questions" section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. Part of me wants to give him some WP:ROPE, but another part of me is concerned with the aggressive tone of his responses here. If this is how he acts at ANI, where he is supposedly on his best behavior and trying to convince everybody that the problems that led up to the topic ban will not recur, how will he act when he runs into another aggressive editor (there are plenty on both sides) on a creationism-related talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm on my "worst" behaviour here, because that's where I hear the highest number of stupid arguments and baseless accusations. And behaving "aggressively" on talk pages without making personal attacks doesn't seem to be a problem - ask Roxy (I'm not being sarcastic here - I genuinely don't think that's a problem if it turns out a net positive for Wikipedia as a project, which it counterintuitively is in at least Roxy's case). Additionally, you should know how I would react from the example I gave, which is that I would make my point and move on if it doesn't gain consensus. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 01:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• What you call "baseless accusations" aren't baseless at all. Stop and think. How many people have told you that your behavior is unacceptable so far? There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well, by "baseless accusations" I meant remarks akin to "I can't let you edit on creationism-related articles yet because creationism is prone to a facile misreading". I might have interpreted that wrongly, but I think the implication is that I am not intelligent enough to understand the context of what is being said. I love your anecdote about the drunk driver (I think I'll save that one for future use), but remarks such as the one above have only been made my one editor. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because nothing has genuinely been learned here, and there are some disturbing claims being made even in the course of making this appeal. Grandpallama (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support for reasons described in the proposal, and because 'oppose' !votes are once again vague and unsubstantiated. Even if WP:AGF is not followed, and it is assumed that I wasn't genuine in any of the examples that I've provided, it is still clear that I wasn't problematic since the ban, so topic ban shouldn't be a solution as per WP:NOPUNISH. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, propose site ban People on here really don't seem to like my "AgGreSsIoN", but none of them seem to have any problems with my editing on creationism-related topics in particular (actually, any editing at all, but that doesn't really matter, because my politeness on AN/I is infinitely more important than my contribution to Wikipedia). Perhaps a site ban would be more appropriate? Perhaps this will protect Wikipedia from this deadly monster that is myself? This should surely put an end to all hostility that there is on Wikipedia, because no other editors are ever defensive over personal attacks on them. That is, all unsanctioned editors, because editors whose editing pattern involves edit-warring blended together with hostility, regardless of their contribution to Wikipedia, always get topic-banned or indef-blocked, as is perfectly demonstrated by the example of Roxy the dog. To conclude, I don't see why my ban should be restricted to creationism. With all above considered, I should be site-banned asap. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 03:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose In this very conversation, this editor continues to display the same tendentious and argumentative behavior that led to the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Protip: when appealing sanctions, do not troll oppose !voters. – Levivich 02:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, marriage specialist ;) (Get it? Because Tolstoy's marriage was horrible? And your name starts with Lev? Okay, this was pretty bad. I tried.) ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 03:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - As others have noted, the editor doesn't seem to get why they were topic-banned and that their behavior has to change. Intractible polemics in this thread make this an easy call. Jusdafax (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The behavior here alone justifies why the topic ban should stay. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Not !Voting, but I doubt this appeal will succeed. I have posted some advice for OJ on a future appeal, which I hope he will consider. I can see the logic in his position that he changed before the ban was imposed so that it wasn't necessary, but believe that pointing to recent actions proving it isn't needed now is more persuasive an approach. In the present appeal, his discussion with jps below is much more concerning that the unwise structure of the appeal. Jps was trying to help and raising a legitimate point and the defensive response does not portray an ability to work cooperatively and productively in a contentious topic area. The site ban proposal above raises questions of maturity and judgement. OJ, please, consider withdrawing this appeal and also please act on Mandruss' point below about your signature and the accessibility issue. EdChem (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the appeal amounts to saying that the topic ban should never have been imposed in the first place and rehashing arguments made against the topic ban when it was imposed. This does not come across well. In order to have the ban lifted the OP needs to convince people that (a) s/he understands why the ban was imposed in the first place, and (b) that it won't happen again. Dealing with disruptive editors is a massive negative for people who are not disruptive, and those are the people we want to stick around here. This is particularly true with articles on fringe theories. Hut 8.5 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, someone who actually bothered to evaluate the situation! I cannot believe my eyes. Well, I think this alone warrants a reply. I understand why the topic ban was proposed, even though I disagree that it should have been imposed. The topic ban was proposed because of 1) my failure to understand what a self-revert is and 2) my recent history of blocks, tendentiousness, and edit-warring. However, I understood these issues soon after the topic ban was proposed and have managed to act upon the issues while the discussion was still ongoing. I was not, however, given the benefit of the doubt, even if evidence was on my side, and was subsequently topic-banned. Needless to say, large amounts of evidence that my disruptive behaviour would not repeat existed even before the topic ban was formally imposed. These included me taking on the advice of others and systematically stopping at 1RR. However, evidence became even more extensive after the topic ban, whereby I had not engaged in a single act of edit-warring for 9 months. I gave examples where I moved on immediately after my ideas did not gain consensus, even if I was still convinced that my ideas were right. I understand that this comment won't actually change anything, as the opposing consensus here is overwhelming, but I just thought your !vote warranted a reply. Using the opportunity, do you think it will be appropriate to appeal again after this appeal is denied, except I will do it properly this time? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments and questions

Question: When was your topic ban implemented? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like the relevant discussions are here and here. --JBL (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for supplying this information. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Question:

1. Why do you want to edit creationism-related pages?
2. I get that you are convinced you were railroaded in the sanction processes. You aren't the first and will not be the last person to feel so victimized (I myself have felt this way and sympathize with the feeling). On the other hand, using this as a basis for an appeal essentially never works. Can you identify the aspects of your own behaviors that led to the topic ban, and can you show any progress you have made on wiki in changing those behaviors or can you explain how you will conduct yourself differently to avoid this kind of problem in the future?

jps (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it is my opinion that I have already described in the original post both the behaviourial patterns which I believe led to my block and the improvements that have since taken place. For the most part, I believe it was 1) me not being careful enough with the policies, like 3RR, and 2) me not being careful enough while the idea of a topic ban was being discussed. Another important lesson that I learnt from the topic ban is "when in doubt, just refrain". For example, most of the arguments for a topic ban (and the original proposal) were made as a result of two of my edits which I believed to be self-reverts; however, they weren't, and I had to pay the price for that. Therefore, since the topic ban was implemented, I didn't engage in any activity that wasn't unanimously uncontroversial, an example of which I provided in the op. Additionally, I provided numerous examples of me taking on advice from other editors (which I still follow to this day), which clearly shows the progress that I have made since the topic ban proposal.

As to why I want to edit creationism-related pages, there is not really a big reason why I want to edit creationism-related pages specifically, but it's just that I tend to edit articles across all subjects, and sometimes articles on the topic of creationism or religion randomly pop up within my editing sphere. For example, I recently experienced a spike of interest in Jewish tradition, culture, and history, given that I myself am Jewish (only ethnically and perhaps culturally; religion-wise, I'm an atheist). Naturally, my research involved reading Wikipedia articles, some of which contained grammatical or factual mistakes, for example. I always strive to make Wikipedia as good and accurate as it can possibly, and the thought that other people might visit an article and get incorrect information out of it really worries me, as when they realise that it's incorrect, they are likely to then distrust Wikipedia completely, which is a huge loss (I actually describe this concern on my user page). Therefore, I really want to be able to edit all articles, without silly restrictions that are of no benefit to really anyone in particular - neither Wikipedia, nor Wikipedia readers, nor me (okay, maybe Roxy may benefit). As I have already demonstrated, I have generated minimal trouble since my ban, so I don't see what the harm will be in lifting my ban on creationism. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your motivations for wanting to edit creationism are the same as editing Wikipedia, which seems reasonable to me, but I worry that you may be a bit too attached to your own predilections for what constitutes "incorrect information". For example, one of the things you insisted upon was the idea that a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis was an encyclopedic perspective. You are also insisting that a description very similar to that of a race realist position on intelligence tests and race is one that is mainstream. These sorts of positions smack a bit more of WP:ADVOCACY as opposed to the ideal which is following WP:RS even when you disagree with the sources (as you seem to in the two instances I outline). Your rejoinder seems to be that you are willing to accept a consensus that is opposed to your understanding of what is correct and, even, your interpretation of WP:PAG. My concern is that this kind of attitude can lend itself to a kind of tiresome tendentiousness even when it doesn't result in edit warring. This is especially concerning to me since you describe your own attitude toward editing as being intense and peripatetic. One thing I didn't like about our encounter was what a time sink it was. I think the direction of "when in doubt, just refrain" is a good one to point towards, but I think there is even more WP:DROPTHESTICK you can do in this regard. I speak from experience here as someone who sometimes has a hard time doing this (we, none of us, are perfect!), but I would like to see a little more introspection in this regard before I would be comfortable seeing you very active on creationism pages. I guess the question is, will we regret giving you WP:ROPE? Will we end up back at WP:ANI, WP:AE, or worse in short order? jps (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, "incorrect information" to me is something that is refuted by WP:RS. You see, you have your own opinions; I have mine. You may think that the statement that race and intelligence are connected constitutes scientific racism; I believe that it is the WP:RS consensus, a consensus which is in fact thoroughly described in another Wikipedia article, and is supported by at least 7 independent reliable sources which I had previously linked. You may believe that the Bible was written entirely metaphorically; I believe that at least of its contents were based on ancient Babylonian science (again a statement supported by numerous reliable sources) and were indeed intended to be taken literally, although of course within a larger metaphorical, story-telling context. None of these opinions by themselves make either me or you a problematic editor. Or, if they do, you have just as much of a potential for tendentiousness as me, or any other editor for that matter, as we all have our opinions and interpretations of reliable sources, all of which differ. Except my "tendentiousness" will probably harm Wikipedia less than other editors, because I already made it the basis of my approach not to edit-war. And I certainly think that this approach is more efficient than just "dropping the stick" and refraining from even discussion; in the vast majority of cases where I actually had the time to make the arguments, I eventually had my way (my contributions to the AiG page included). Once again, you are absolutely free to !vote in whichever way you find the most appropriate, but, if I were to weigh in, I'd say that simply having different opinions or approaches to editing by itself isn't a strong enough justification to !vote negatively. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

So, here is the problem. I think in your defensiveness you have completely missed my critique of your approaches which is not whether you believe (a) or (b) but whether you can evaluate what the WP:MAINSTREAM academic position is about (a) or (b). My concern is that you cannot write for the enemy when you become convinced something is true, and this is reflected in your mischaracterization of my argument. The larger problem for me is that in a topic as controversial as creationism, there are some things which are surprisingly not apparent to a facile reading. Even using a term like "ancient Babylonian science" needs to be couched since the sources do not indicate there is such a thing as "ancient Babylonian science". This is a problem of rhetoric and, as such, sometimes does not matter on the article page itself. But if it does come down to it, I think that you are too tied to having your way in these regards and do not see that your scholarship itself is suspect. There are people at Wikipedia who hold to peculiar positions similar to yours, but they are okay with the fact that Wikipedia is skewed against their approach. I'm not getting the impression that this is you from our current conversation. jps (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. If you want to believe that all views which oppose yours are by default necessarily not WP:MAINSTREAM, you are free to do that. If you want to believe that I'm someone who holds WP:FRINGE opinions because I'm too narrow-minded or too firm in my opinion that I'm not open to other options, and too dumb to evaluate these issues in a manner that is not "facile", you're free to believe that, too. However, bear in mind that the very topic ban that we are discussing is one that I earned by writing for the enemy, regarding a topic that I have probably the firmest opinion on out of all topics (I am a strongly convinced atheist). Bear in mind also that I have provided several examples in op where I admitted to being wrong even in cases where it might have seemed that I was being firm and inflexible. In truth, I will tell you that I know my weaknesses very well (anyone who knows me irl will confirm this), and being too inflexible is far, far from being one of my weaknesses. Defensiveness? Perhaps, but only if I'm being defensive over something that I have good evidence of being right about, as in this case. And I will also tell you that barely hold any "peculiar positions" whatsoever. If you're hinting at my position on race and intelligence, that's an opinion that I had formed soon after reading the sources provided in the article; I did not have a position on the topic prior. And I am more than willing to change my opinion if someone can provide any reliable sources whatsoever that definitively rule out any correlation between intelligence and various ethnic groups; in this case, though, almost all articles on intelligence will have to be completely rewritten. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to understand my point and instead are seeing an attack on your person where instead I am trying to offer a critique of your approach. Defensiveness is exactly the problem, and as it seems to be your go-to in discussions like this and ones that are bound to occur in the talkpages of creationism, I really wish you would try to address this. I was not "hinting" at any position you have taken. I am simply saying that your scholarship is peculiar, but that is not a problem at Wikipedia unless the person who does that cannot take this kind of critique. It is not a problem for you to disagree with such an assessment, but if you cannot try to understand why someone might see this in your approach and if you cannot formulate a response that is not knee-jerk, I don't see this going well. jps (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm totally in the blue as to what you're saying, I think I understood your point the first time. As per your previous comment, it seems like your point was that I couldn't evaluate what is mainstream and what is not; to which I replied "we all have our opinions as to what constitutes as mainstream; my valuation, in this instance, differs from yours, but, in my opinion, that isn't reason enough for you to !vote 'oppose', although you are free to !vote whichever way you please". You have also criticised my scholarship as peculiar, by which I think you mean not mainstream. However, this links directly to the point that I just made. Of course I understand why you would think that - because not all people have the same opinions, as I have explained - but, in my opinion, this by itself does not necessarily render my scholarship peculiar. For my scholarship to really be "peculiar" - or, in more rigorous terms, fringe - it needs to lack evidence from reliable sources, which it doesn't almost by definition, as my opinion on almost all topics defaults to the opinion which is best supported by available evidence. Once again, my valuation of "what is supported by available evidence" may not always be correct, but my approach - "scholarship" is pretty standard and mainstream.

And, as to defensiveness, consider this: not only have I already conceded that I am pretty defensive by myself, and a Wikipedia ban will not change this, but I don't even think it's a bad quality for a Wikipedia editor to have. On the contrary, there have been many occasions where, through stubbornness and "defensiveness", I have been able to get my way and actually improve the article (the AiG page is one example). Now, it seems like you disagree, but that's fine: as I said, our opinions will differ, but I don't think that really warrants a topic ban. Additionally, you need to understand my position as well. From my position, the situation looks something like this:

• You are accusing me of holding fringe views and not willing to change my mind about them, which is already pretty offensive to me, because I my approach is pretty much the opposite: align my position with that of the scholarly community, but always be able to change it if it is shown that I have misinterpreted this position.
• You are then accusing me of not being able to edit on behalf of the other party's point of view in a discussion of a topic ban that I earned by doing exactly that.
• You are additionally subtly implying that all of the above is partly the result of a lack of competence to read in a "non-facile" manner.
• And you are using all of this to support a topic ban which should not in a million years have been imposed.

Tell me you would not get at least a little bit defensive in this situation. Okay, I doubt you will be convinced by any of this, but that's fine. It doesn't seem like consensus is going my way, anyway. I am just genuinely confused as to why you'd want me to stay away from creationism-related articles specifically, or from any articles for that matter. Even if you believe that I'm an incompetent, narrow-minded, insufferable fringe-pov pusher, how would that be a problem if I stop at the first revert of my edits? And why does it have to be creationism-related articles of all topics? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I think we should migrate everything past the od down to my talk page (or yours). I doubt anyone apart from us will actually read it, and it's already starting to look like a wall of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment:
For context, I am going to copy what I wrote at 22:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) at ANI:

Oldstone James has been told -- repeatedly -- what he should do when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors (stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change). He has been told this by a wide variety of editors. He has been told this gently and respectfully. He has been told this aggressively and forcefully. He has been told this in the form of a block by an administrator. He has been told this by an uninvolved administrator who reviewed the block and denied his appeal. I question whether any mentoring will be acceptable to him. I think that the moment the mentor tells him to stop edit warring and seek consensus he will instantly add the mentor to the list of inferior beings who he will not listen to because it is all their fault. I also question whether, given his present attitude, he has the ability to contribute constructively on any page related to creationism. I have not yet concluded that he cannot contribute constructively on other topics, which is why I am asking for a topic ban and not for another block. This may be one of those cases where someone is topic banned, learns how to get along with other editors on articles where his feelings are not quite so strong, gets the topic ban lifted after six months, and goes on to make real improvements to the article that he formerly edit warred over.

I now see what appears to be a completely different attitude from what I described last April. Based upon this, Unless Oldstone James indicates that he disagrees with my advice (when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors he should refrain from edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change) I am strongly inclined to lift the topic ban per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Changed my mind. I am seeing exactly the same attitude from what I described last April. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for the unwarranted dig that I threw at you in the previous comment. Thanks for having some objectivity and common sense. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: In response to Guy's !vote: not quite. I understand exactly what led to the proposal of a topic ban. However, I had acted upon these issues as the proposal was being discussed and, in my opinion, had more than enough evidence of that by the end of the discussion for a topic ban not to be warranted. However, even that's not really relevant. If you believe that my comment proves that I had not learnt anything, you should be able to find a reflection of that in my actions. However, if you look at my actions, you'll find that I had not been problematic since the imposal of the ban. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Notifying editors who were involved in the original topic ban proposal: Nil Einne Bishonen Dumuzid Guettarda Johnuniq Epiphyllumlover Samsara Nick Thorne EdChem The Duke 1990'sguy The Anome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment:
Hello. Would this be a good time to mention that your signature is extremely difficult to read, violating the WP:SIGAPP policy? The contrast values for your white-on-green and grey-on-green are 1.65 and 2.392 respectively, both well below the recommended minimum of 4.5. This is an accessibility issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment:
So, I was involved in a minor way back when this happened. The user and I had a fair few interactions, generally from differing positions, but, I thought, mostly civil and positive. I expected to come here and be fully supportive of this appeal. However, as others have said, the pugilism on display here gives me pause. I originally thought that the topic ban was a bit heavy-handed, but I certainly understood (and understand) it. I would urge Oldstone James (as I ever do) that reasonable minds can differ, and to proceed from that premise. A happy weekend to all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question - Isn't this edit (and this comment) a violation of the current topic ban? I was looking at the discussion here and OJ's contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• It seems they plain forgot, which brought about this very appeal. El_C 06:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm skeptical that someone who adhered to a topic ban for 8 months suddenly forgot. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal

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

---

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

Hi,

I would like to appeal my topic ban [10] that was sanctioned by @Bishonen:. It has almost been a year since I was banned from editing pages related to caste and social groups. Therefore I request that this ban be lifted so that I can once again edit such pages. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• How is your approach to editing such pages going to change, so that the issues which led to your topic ban will no longer happen? Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The primary reason for my ban has been mentioned as my disregard for sources. So I will abide by Wikipedia policy regarding WP:VERIFY while editing such pages in the future. Also, I will be more careful while leaving edit comments so that it is as per WP:CIVIL. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence here. To their credit, Nittawinoda has both kept to their topic ban (unless I've missed something) and has also been editing diligently about other things since I placed it. However, looking at Nittawinoda's aggressiveness just before I placed the topic ban a year ago gives me pause; for instance this extremely bad-faith-assuming post in reply to a warning from me, and this typical caste-warrior comment. Nittawinoda, do you now understand that a) British Raj sources are not acceptable, b) tendentious caste promotion will not be tolerated on Wikipedia and c) you need to assume good faith of experienced and knowledgeable editors who try to advise you, such as User:Sitush? Unfortunately, Sitush hasn't edited since October; I'm pinging him in case he gets e-mail alerts for pings. I'll also ping a few admins who are knowledgeable in these subjects: @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, and SpacemanSpiff: Unfortunately Spiffy isn't around much either. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, I understand that Colonial era sources are not reliable. Just to clear the air, I am not here to glorify or promote any caste. Also, I have been assuming good faith while interacting with other editors. To cite a few examples, since my ban, I have single handedly expanded the article Kulottunga I and helped promote it to GA status - check [11]. I have also engaged in meaningful discussions with other editors like @Kautilya3: to hash out differences and attain consensus when there is a conflict like for example the content regarding Pallava article check [12]. So I've been doing my best to abide by wiki policies since my ban. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to offer this user WP:ROPE, as I cannot find anything egregiously problematic in their recent history, but they still appear to have an antagonistic approach in some cases, so I would suggest that if the TBAN is lifted, a 1RR restriction is imposed with the same scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Responding to ping. Indeed, upon Abecedare's suggestion, I was involved with helping resolve a dispute between Nittawinoda and another editor at the Pallava dynasty page. It was quite a challenging dispute. Nittawinoda's conduct was cooperative and entirely above board. His use of sources still left a lot to be desired. But, as long as he engages with other editors and works collaboratively, there should be no problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Note: We're sadly short-handed wrt Indian admins; I just realised Abecedare isn't around either. Nittawinoda, I'm inclined to extend WP:ROPE as recommended above. Vanamonde, if Nittawinoda should happen to be overly antagonistic going forward, and especially if they relapse into caste promotion, a 1RR restriction, or indeed the original topic ban, can be imposed as needed by any uninvolved admin. Castes and social groups are under community discretionary sanctions per WP:CASTE, so it's not like another AN hassle would be needed. But let's wait a bit for other opinions first.Bishonen | talk 12:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC).
• I say we should give them WP:ROPE, as long as they continue to improve I suspect we will not need to be back here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per ROPE. ∯WBG^converse 12:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Suppot with the caveat offered by Vanamonde (the 1RR restriction). Unfortunately, Sitush is not around and is the only one who really knows their way around the caste articles (I'm clueless) but if Vanamonde promises to keep an eye on them ... we should be good.--regentspark (comment) 17:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Fwiw, I believe @Winged Blades of Godric: (and me, to a limited extent) is aware of how to navigate through them, although personally I do not take much of an interest in the subject. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well, don't look at me, I have no idea. We have pretty much all relied on Sitush, I guess. Did Vanamonde promise that, regentspark..? If they do, I will support their suggestion for 1RR. Not as a bribe, but simply because anybody who admins caste articles deserves all the help we can supply. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

  Oh dear. @Bishonen and RegentsPark: I'm comfortable with the source material to a limited extent, but I don't want to make promises because of some very substantial RL commitments in the next few months. I cannot promise I can watch over each of their contributions. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, of course not, Vanamonde; I, at least, didn't mean that. You still seem to be in better shape than any other currently active admin. So. We can't very well keep the user under a topic ban merely because we're short of admins competent in the area; that situation is not Nittawinoda's fault. Are we agreed on lifting the topic ban with a 1RR restriction for castes and social groups? Note, that would mean 1RR for the same area that the topic ban covered: caste and social group-related matters anywhere, not just caste articles, as per WP:TBAN. I could presumably decide this on my own, since I set the original T-ban on my own discretion, but I'd very much like to have consensus for whatever I do here. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC).

Yes, let's go ahead with this. I've been reviewing Nittawinoda's edits and I think this will work out. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do my best to check in on them from time to time. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

And we're talking about an indefinite 1RR restriction for edits related to caste and social groups, right? Or not? I'm for indefinite myself; it's not really onerous to be forbidden from edit warring. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC).

Looks like it. OK, doing it. Bishonen | talk 09:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC).

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

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

---

Dark Emu

On 18 January I made edits to the article on Australian author Bruce Pascoe, who has been the subject of controversy following the publication of his book Dark Emu, and which the press has covered for months. (e.g. two articles of recent days: [13]; [14])

Conscious of WP:BLP, I was therefore cautious in my edits. The existing first sentence stated "Bruce Pascoe (born 1947) is an Aboriginal Australian writer". However, this is not proven, and according to press reports two leading koori organisations dispute his claim. What Pascoe himself states is that he *self-identifies* as part aboriginal. So I amended the text to read: "Bruce Pascoe (born 1947) is a writer of literary fiction, non-fiction, poetry, essays and children's literature who identifies as being Aboriginal Australian." Given one of the organisations has a database, and the other holds family records, until he agrees to a DNA test the claim must remain questioned. So I believe the wording, which mirrors his own language on the issue is fair and reasonable.

The 'Identity' section (currently reverted back as to how it appeared prior to my edits) covered no less than six paragraphs, with much repetitive and redundant material. The only reference it makes to the controversy is to the objections of a single aboriginal lawyer. I was able to edit the material down without losing its impact to three paragraphs, and also to add for balance: "However, the Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council (which manages a database of people of Boonwurrung descent), and the Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania question Pascoe's ancestry claim." As an authoritative reference for this statement, I used the Sydney Morning Herald article linked above. In the section of the article on his book Dark Emu, which read like a publisher's release, and included no information that its claims have been questioned, I added: "The book's claims have been the subject of controversy, and have been challenged, including by scholar Peter O'Brien in Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu (Quadrant Press, 2019, ISBN 9780995368316); by the conservative magazine Quadrant;[18] and a multi-author website Dark Emu Exposed [www.dark-emu-exposed.org].

These cautious edits were made in good faith, and fall well-within WP:BLP published guidelines. They were quickly reverted by another editor with the statement "You need to gain consensus for these edits on the talk page." Since when did a carefully measured statement, that is supported by a source which is the leading newspaper of the largest city in a nation, even for BLPs, require prior approval? If so, Wikipedia editing would grind to a halt.

The Wikipedia article on the book Dark Emu also read like a media release, similarly containing almost no information that the book was the subject of controversy. I therefore added the same sentence to it. I also edited an existing sentence in the article which read: "The main criticism of the book by academics has been of Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices." This is certainly not correct, as a reading of the months of press reports of the controversy would inform. Academics have also expressed reservations about the book's interpretation of primary sources, and there has been wider dispute that the thesis itself is flawed. Leaving this for others, I simply excised the inaccurate phrase "The main criticism of the book", so the revised sentence stated "Academics have disputed Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices."

My contribution was promptly reverted by Admin Nick-D (talk · contribs) with the edit statement:

"Quadrant is a WP:FRINGE publication. Not correct to imply that academics disapprove of the book. Both problematical per WP:BLP".

Firstly, Quadrant is the leading conservative publication of Australia, and respected academically as such. Secondly I was not even using it as a source, but merely informing that it was one of the media channels for the controversy. Thirdly, the statement "Not correct to imply that academics disapprove of the book" is false: some approve, some hold reservations, and some object. As an example, I had listed the scholarly work 'Bitter Harvest' that has been published by Quadrant, and also referenced a multi-author website that seeks to fact-check Pascoe's claims by quoting the original source material he used for the book. Again, all I sought to do was inform of the EXISTENCE of the controversy (which was not indicated by the existing text): doing so judiciously is certainly not (and I quote) "problematical per WP:BLP".

I therefore reverted it again, but also added The Australian newspaper for good measure in addition to Quadrant (for better or for worse the Murdoch press has particularly covered the issue). Nick-D then reverted again and posted on my Talk page:

"Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. They further added "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons."

Quite simply: false, deflective, and insulting. I requested on my Talk page Nick-D justify his revert in detail or apologise, but there has been silence. Very disappointing. Setting up a discussion on an article's Talk page for the usual exhausting, greased eel line of argumentation we all know and love is all fine and dandy, but when even an Admin in the first instance engages as I've outlined above, the thought is: why bother. ClearBreeze (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Issues around Bruce Pascoe have been brought to the BLP Noticeboard recently here (briefy) and here (longer thread). There has also been posting from the advocate behind the above-linked Dark Emu Exposed website, across different identities. The OP is not a new editor – there are two threads at user talk:ClearBreeze about edits relating to Pascoe, and the OP has also argued at RSN for rescinding the ban on the Daily Mail, which makes me wonder about the OP's judgement in relation to sourcing. Edited to add last sentence EdChem (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Heartening to see any assumption of goodwill dismissed. For the record: I have no association with the Dark Emu Exposed website, or with sockpuppetry, but thanks for the juvenile conspiracist fingerpointing. Whether the DM should be a Wiki source is irrelevant to the incident at hand. The last post of the second prior ANI case suggests the page should include "mentioning the dispute if properly framed and attributed". That's precisely what I did. And for the record: someone on that thread calling Quadrant "yellow journalism" is an hilarious opinion of Dave Spart proportions. Presumably The Sydney Morning Herald now is as well! ClearBreeze (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WTF is this at AN? Frankly unless you're asking us to block you, it doesn't really matter who you are or why you're on wikipedia. Your WP:BOLD edit was objected to. And it doesn't matter whether you think people should have objected to your edit. They did. So you do need to discuss on the article talk page. People object to edits where some editor felt there would be no objection all the time, it's part and parcel of editing here. Various related issues have been extensively discussed on the article talk page and BLPN, so there should really be no surprise about the objection anyway. Discussion on the article talk page (and other appropriate places) is also a key part of editing here, and if you aren't willing to do so, opening a pointless long thread at AN is going to achieve nothing. If you have objections about the characterisation of Quadrant at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source", then open a discussion at WP:RSN. Incidentally I disagree that your views on the Daily Mail are irrelevant. If yours views on what makes a source reliable seem to be far divorced from the communities, then we have greater reason to be concerned about your use of questionable/generally unreliable sources like Quadrant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Nice trolling. (You only needed to do it once: not on my Talk page as well.) 1. Quadrant is Australia's leading conservative opinion journal, to which leading conservative figures, including former Prime Ministers and academic luminaries have written for. To paint it as an 'unreliable source', rather than respectable is just juvenile nonsense peddled by those for whom any alternate opinion is something to be suppressed. Given your choice of puerile student language – ("WTF is this at AN? Frankly unless you're asking us to block you") – I appreciate your preferred mode of argument may reflect that of the religious-fascist state of Malaysia, where you appear to originally hail from, and that text which embraces differing opinions may be a confronting foreign concept for you. However, it is a cultural tradition here in the West. I warmly encourage you to acquaint yourself with it.

2. As I was at pains to point out, I did not even bother to use Quadrant as a source, although I could have. If you'd read what I'd written, you would have seen I simply stated that Quadrant, the book 'Bitter Harvest' published by Quadrant Press, and The Australian, were three of the channels where the controversy had been raised. The specific source I used was The Sydney Morning Herald. Got it now? Hopefully.

3. If a statement in an article is baldly factual and supported by an authoritative source, it is not good manners to revert it simply because you personally disagree with it. And certainly not for an Admin to do so! And for an Admin to support such a revert with IMHO what are – well I've already stated what I think of what they wrote – is particularly regrettable. An approach of mutual respect involves, like any civilised debate, either contributing an edit with an equally opposing fact that is supported by an authoritative source, and thereby provide a balancing view, or seek to discuss the edit with the individual who put the work into it.

4. The edits I made were fully within Wikipedia guidelines, and, as previously stated, reflected the suggestion made in the previous noticeboard case incident, which had either not been followed through on, or reverted as mine was! ClearBreeze (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor seems to have an axe to grind against this author and their book. Point 1 in the post above indicates that they're some kind of obnoxious jerk. I reverted their edit to Dark Emu as it used a notoriously bad source to criticise the author's work and added a false claim that academics disapproved of the work: both are problematic per WP:BLP given the author is a living person and this forms part of an agenda of editing. I'd note that there's currently a campaign targeting this author and their book being waged by the far-right in Australia, of which this editing seems part. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Extreme right racists in Australia are working hard to discredit Dark Emu and its author. (The book seemingly terrifies them.) They are using many nasty tools and tactics. And the word "many" is critical here. There really is a flood of offensive, immoral and offensive material being hurled at the book and author. That makes it difficult to refute each individual attack. There are just so many. But quantity doesn't make the attacks correct. This complaint at AN by pretty much a single issue editor is just another part of the campaign. It should be quickly dismissed. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: "This editor seems to have an axe to grind against this author and their book." No, but I do have an axe to grind elsewhere, viz: you write – "I reverted their edit to Dark Emu as it used a notoriously bad source to criticise the author's work and added a false claim that academics disapproved of the work". Firstly, the existing article text itself refers to academic criticism, including from Gammage. The passage "The main criticism of the book by academics" was there before I began. Secondly, as I outlined above, Quadrant is only considered "a notoriously bad source" by the 'Progressive Left'. Bringing in Social Justice Warrior 'Cancel Culture' to Wikipedia to ban sources you personally object to is utterly offensive to editorial balance and truth, and brings into question your own fitness to be an Administrator. (The egregious ban on the Daily Mail as a Wikipedia source is part and parcel of this mentality. How damaging it is to fact can be gauged by a single example: a landmark speech by Cecil Rhodes on imperialism was only covered by a journalist from the Mail – there because Lord Northcliffe could afford the resources. By way of contrast, The Guardian, both as excellent and as biased as it can be, wasn't nicknamed The Graunaid for its accuracy.) Thirdly, you write: "I'd note that there's currently a campaign targeting this author and their book being waged by the far-right in Australia". Another distortion. It's far from just the "far right". There are also reservations about the book way beyond that sector. Indeed, Gammage who makes some of the same claims as Pascoe, has been the subject of criticism by botanists, to name but one. ClearBreeze (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on Quadrant, and one on Keith Windschuttle, it's current editor, and editor for eight years earlier this century. A look at both will give other editors a feel for the long term political position and attitude to Aboriginal people of both entities. To expect impartial comment there would a nonsensical position. Both are at the extremes of positions on such matters. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

And your point is? No one is denying Quadrant is right wing, just as no one would deny, for example that The Guardian or New Statesman are left wing. Regrettably, public discussion of the book and its author has become politicised as part of the ongoing 'History Wars' over the interpretation of colonial and aboriginal history. (One line of argument is that since the 'aborigines as agriculturalists and careful land management custodians' theory came into recent being, even existing as a proud nomadic hunter-gather people who may have been existential opportunists like any such others, has devolved into being an historical thing of shame which must not be propounded at any cost.) Nevertheless, and unfortunately for the leftists here, including apparently an Administrator, editorial balance demands that BOTH sides be represented. ClearBreeze (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Quadrant has already been ruled out here as a reliable source for factual reporting. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That RfC is risible, AND untenable. It has a mere handful of contributors, and as one editor states: "This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS." Will there be ANY conservative publication that Wikipedia permits to be used as a source in a few years? The way things are going with its adoption of intolerant liberalism and deplatforming, I doubt it. So further eroding its own credibility as a reliable source. More to the point, as I stated upthread, I did not use Quadrant, or the book it published, as a quoted source in the edit. I used them to flag the existence of the controversy. But comprehension skills here are bedrock poor. ClearBreeze (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That final sentence is a perfect example of personal attacks on every other editor in the thread. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It's an observational analysis. I've frustratingly needed to repeat basic points, either because of an inability of respondents to focus on the points made, or a wilful refusal to do so, and instead engage in deflection tactics. It's a common problem on Wikipedia, and why threads like this balloon out, and go round in circles with no effective resolution. Symptomatic of the greater world, every day Wikipedia becomes more intolerant of differing opinion, facts, and editorial balance. So perhaps we should close this now, because it's certainly going nowhere, and wasting everyone's time. I won't bother with the Dark Emu article and let it remain the half-truth it currently is. Perhaps others will seek to address it. ClearBreeze (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

(EC) I have not read most of the follow ups, but I want to point out that the idea a source was not being used as an RS is clear nonsense. If there is no RS to establish a controversy, then there is no controversy. Otherwise I could point to Reddit, 4chan or my own personal website and say there was a controversy. So either the Quadrant is being used as an RS to establish there is a controversy. Or the content was being added without sources and should be removed. This is why I ignored that silly argument, and probably also why others ignored. Also I still don't understand why this is at AN. Either open a discussion in the appropriate places, or don't. AN is not intended for random complaints on the evils of the world, or wikipedia. It's intended for discussion of specific issues with require administrative attention. If you aren't willing to engage in discussion over your content dispute, then the only issue that may require administative attention is whether to block you. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"I have not read most of the follow ups....It's intended for discussion of specific issues with require administrative attention." Yes, and clearly you didn't even bother to properly read my first post: if you had you might have grasped that it outlined that I believed, and still believe, that an Administrator had engaged in biased editing. That's the bloody incident. Got it? But I now most humbly understand that what he did is all hunky dory but means of a farcical RfC which casts, believe it or not, Quadrant as a suspect source! And even if that disgraceful RfC hadn't existed, the system for sanctioning him is broken anyway, as we can see here: [15] So we're done. But feel free to reopen any other closed discussion here without following procedure. Why not open all of them?! Because you're precious and magical. No, truly. ClearBreeze (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Harassment / antisemitic vandalism

Hi - I would appreciate some more experienced admin eyes on an issue I just noticed. I spotted some strange articles being created by GlowingFlowers, and when I turned up on their talk page I noticed the diff that was left there at 12:29 by IP 63.138.72.245 (I've revdelled it as purely disruptive). I checked the IP's other contribs, and found a bunch of racist/anti-semitic stuff at various articles - I think I've cleaned it all up now, and I've blocked the IP for 31 hours, but I wonder if a longer block would be appropriate under the circumstances, or whether anyone else notices anything I've missed. Thanks for any advice. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a Marriott Vacation Club (Ocean Pointe) IP, so even though I would have went with a longer block —reflexively, I go with no less than a week for these type of edits— to instill the pointe, that block duration is probably fine (unless there's substantially more disruption we've missed). El_C 13:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks - I'll leave there for now, happy for anyone to amend or extend as necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of powers

Dear Managers, this lady or Mr. manager and her team. Here. They intend to annoy certain users and block them by creating a file. Does not allow user to delete created pages in less than 24 hours then delete it quickly. like this GaruyZerh. Goodarz Irani (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside that this is the wrong venue for this sort of complaint (WP:ANI would be the correct one), as long as it's here I wanted to note that the extent of my interaction with this editor consists of proposing a single article for deletion for reasons that I expressed, followed by a note I left on their Talk page conveying concerns I have with articles they've been creating. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be some issues with User:Goodarz Irani's article creation. Kasa-Roud fails to meet GNG with only one source that is not available online, the article is largely incoherent, and only after digging in to some of the linked articles do I discover that it seems to be a fictional place. Jawira (Shahnameh) is also incoherent and also appears to be a fictional person written as fact. The user appears to be creating a large number of articles about characters or plot elements without establishing notability. It may require some more coordinated cleanup. ST47 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Canadian open proxies

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

---

During the last week an anonymous user has been using open proxies from Canada to remove content from the page Maltese (dog) and to pretend to be another user in Talk:Maltese (dog). The IPs are the following:

• 142.167.63.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 74.15.115.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 108.172.129.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 104.159.54.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Luckily, an administrator has already blocked 2 of them, so just 2 more miss. I suggest to keep an eye on those pages because the anonymous is probably going to use more open proxies. --151.21.70.193 (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The main article is semi-protected and the proxies are blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Google search linking to older versions of WP pages

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

---

I have been noticing over the past few days that, when logged out, google search links to older versions of articles, by several hours. For example, at 13.06 UTC now, google search is linking to the Emily Hale article (and edit history), from 5.53 UTC, over 7 hours ago. However, if I log in, google search links to the most recent version (and edit history) of the article. Is that a fault on our side – E.g. have we stopped giving google the update data in real-time? Britishfinance (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance This seems more suited for WP:VPT. –xeno^talk 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Xeno – will move it to there. Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

99.228.212.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:Mwiner emailed my university. Their main goal has been to list the main action of venlafaxine as an opioid.

I have thus blocked this IP as a sock of Mwiner. Let me know if anyone has concerns. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Unblock appeal from Doncram

Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 72 hours by the BrownHairedGirl for disruption. They have posted voluminously about the block and surrounding issues. As they allege admin abuse, I asked BHG about posting here. She agrees. I'm not going to even try to post it here or to even summarize. If someone can have a look, please do. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra 11:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "good thing" about admin abuse is that it's easily identifiable. One sentence can provide what the admin did wrong, how they did it wrong and probably even why they did it wrong. If it can't be said in a sentence, don't bother saying it.
  Although as an object lesson in TL;DR, it's the platonic ideal. ——SN54129 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So come out of your cave walking on your hands//And see the world hanging upside down --Plato/Mumford and Sons-- Deepfriedokra 12:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Marcus Mumford's Administrators' Noticeboard and Philosophical Steakhouse  :) ——SN54129 15:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support block This appears to be this user's 12th block. 13th, but one of the blocks was in error. I see nothing wrong with the block except for its unexpectedly short duration given the history shown in the block log. WP:BOOMERANG applies here, but I suggest Doncram's misbehaviour doesn't rise to the level of an extended block at this time. --Yamla (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Note, though, that before the current block, the previous one was for 31 h in 2018 (for the same reason) and the one before that was in 2014. That likely explains the choice of block length. EdChem (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Good block (ow, my eyes...) Looks like a good block to me, the wall of text doesn't convince me that BHG is abusing the mop. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Good block. Perhaps extend the length to a week or so to give Doncram a chance to see what others think and take on board what they have said. As an uninvolved editor who commented on his talk page before he created the second unblock request. It appears even clearer to me now that he is displaying WP:IDHT behaviour; his second unblock rquest straight up ignores what everyone else is saying and going after BHG and denying that he is making up allegations (then in rhe next paragraph continuing to make more allegations), It is sad that an editor who has been productive elsewhere has to be blocked for refusal to follow one rule. Tknifton (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. The editor's attitude would suggest that this will become an indef. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Another admin should have decided whether to block: BHG and Doncram have a longstanding disagreement on WP:REDNOT which has been going on for months, making BHG WP:INVOLVED. BHG should have brought it to this board and an uninvolved admin should have made the call. Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An admin explaining a policy or guideline to a user (even at length) doesn't make that admin involved, but is what admins should do before blocking: if an editor makes mistakes, check whether the problem has been explained and warnings been given, and if the problems persist, block. Whether these explanations and warnings were given by the same or by another admin has no importance. (Good block, by the way). Fram (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)