Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	10	0	10
TfD	0	1	12	0	13
MfD	0	0	4	0	4
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	67	0	67
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 127 sockpuppet investigations
• 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 11 Fully protected edit requests
• 12 Candidates for history merging
• 7 requests for RD1 redaction
• 32 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 44 requested closures
• 125 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 16 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (51 out of 8361 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 3D Organon 2024-09-06 18:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Railway stations in countryname opened in YYYY category header 2024-09-06 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2515 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Punjabi language 2024-09-06 17:07 2026-09-06 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 User talk:Omensanne 2024-09-06 11:08 2024-09-08 11:08 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:Uzbekxmas 2024-09-06 11:03 2024-09-08 11:03 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:Gnashchamp 2024-09-06 11:00 2024-09-08 11:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot Eric Dick (lawyer) 2024-09-06 05:13 2025-09-06 05:13 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Real Life (webcomic) 2024-09-06 02:16 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case User talk:Vestahutu 2024-09-05 21:01 2024-09-07 21:01 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot Raven Saunders 2024-09-05 17:59 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per request Daniel Case User talk:Cabothash 2024-09-05 13:58 2024-09-07 13:58 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot List of Terminator (franchise) characters 2024-09-05 13:53 2024-12-05 13:53 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Unbelievable Gwenpool 2024-09-05 13:32 2024-12-05 13:32 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate User talk:Nannyewer 2024-09-05 13:20 2024-09-07 13:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:Monetrube 2024-09-05 13:15 2024-09-07 13:15 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:Havensedan 2024-09-05 13:07 2024-09-07 13:07 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts 331dot User talk:Cosbynose 2024-09-05 11:20 2024-09-07 11:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:Hungnecks 2024-09-05 11:19 2024-09-07 11:19 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:Townknob 2024-09-05 11:19 2024-09-07 11:19 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot Tulkarm Brigade 2024-09-05 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (1 April – 26 July 2024) 2024-09-05 02:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2 January – 31 March 2024) 2024-09-05 02:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (24 November 2023 – 1 January 2024) 2024-09-05 02:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (8 October – 23 November 2023) 2024-09-05 02:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (27 July 2024 – present) 2024-09-05 01:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Partition of India 2024-09-04 21:00 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: this discussion Academic Challenger Darryl Cooper 2024-09-04 19:56 2025-09-04 19:56 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Tiwana 2024-09-04 19:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Karabakh movement 2024-09-04 19:06 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree White genocide (Armenians) 2024-09-04 19:05 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree Western Azerbaijan (irredentist concept) 2024-09-04 19:03 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan 2024-09-04 19:02 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree Rana Sanga 2024-09-04 15:57 2026-09-04 15:57 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 AH Milad 2024-09-04 14:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jauerback Red Sea crisis 2024-09-04 01:53 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection (move protection was missing) by Ymblanter: Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Daniel Quinlan Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-09-04 01:51 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection (move protection was missing) by Isabelle Belato: Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-09-04 00:24 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Red-tailed hawk: Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Protection Helper Bot Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-04 00:14 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Malinaccier: Per WP:A/I/PIA Protection Helper Bot Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts 2024-09-04 00:04 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Prolog: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War Protection Helper Bot September 2024 Israel ceasefire protests 2024-09-03 21:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case September 2024 Poltava strike 2024-09-03 20:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Template:Election box turnout no change 2024-09-03 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2516 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Rauso 2024-09-03 16:46 2025-03-03 16:46 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Bhar 2024-09-03 03:40 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case List of massacres in Jerusalem 2024-09-03 03:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting 2024-09-03 03:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Abu Shujaa 2024-09-03 03:13 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Alien vs. Predator characters 2024-09-03 03:04 2025-09-03 03:04 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate List of Rick and Morty characters 2024-09-03 02:44 2024-12-03 02:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Al Madeena Cherpulassery 2024-09-02 20:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Khalil al-Hayya 2024-09-02 18:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction EdJohnston

YARFCCR: Regarding Joe Biden's fingers

• I'm sorry to bring yet another close review here. It's because I've been slowly clearing the backlog at ANRFC, and the stuff that had been unclosed for a long time was mostly pretty contentious. Anyway, a few days ago I made this close, and an editor has very politely and respectfully indicated on my talk page that she feels I might have been mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I'll be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, having only read your statement, the discussion here and on your talk page let me suggest that you are, perhaps, too quick to ask for review of your own closes. As neither of the reviews you recently launched attracted much attention may I suggestion that when you think you've done it right it might be appropriate to let the challenging party choose whether to put it up for review or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I might be wrong, though. I've closed a contentious, high-visibility discussion, and if a good faith editor feels I've made a mess of it then I think it's right to ask for more eyes on it. We've got far too many discussion closers who respond to approaches on their talk page like they're infallible.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You know, S Marshall, since people are apparently challenging these closes partly because they're non-admin-closes, we could get rid of that issue; why don't you try again for admin? Our BLP and flagged-revisions policies are rather stable now, so you wouldn't likely get complaints about that like you did last time, and if you're going around making closes and routinely getting sustained when people object, that's a really solid indication that you'd be trustworthy as an admin. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody in 2020 has said they're challenging my closes based on whether I'm a sysop, and least of all Atsme, who I've always found immensely pleasant and respectful. When people challenge my closes it's based on their perception that I've misread the consensus or got something substantive wrong. And if being a sysop would have a chilling effect on those approaches, then maybe the difficult cases shouldn't be closed by sysops.

  The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't do credentialism. Whether you're in a content dispute or a discussion close, you're expected to be approachable, talk to others, be ready to show your working, and submit to the consensus.

  At the time of my RFA, which was eleven years ago, I was still young enough to want to climb ladders. I'm now pushing fifty and I no longer default to ladder-climbing. There is a figure for which I'd go through the week of bullshit and character assassination from the peanut gallery. It's not a small figure. You could start a Gofundme, I suppose?—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, most of the time I see someone challenging a non-admin closure, part or all of the challenge is basically "A non-admin shouldn't have performed this close; it's too contentious". If you're not getting that kind of reaction, that's fine, but not what I was expecting. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, good close, and IMO it's always reasonable to invite review in contentious cases. Guy (help!) 23:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am unaware of any conscientious close which is not challenged to some degree. Sometimes the challenge brings up good points and is accommodated. Other (often?) times the closer stands by their close. That's all as it should be. If S Marshall is going to continue to close contentious RfCs, and I have seen nothing to suggest they shouldn't, having them regularly bring their closes to RfC, rather than coming from someone truly challenging it, is not a good use of the community's time. Peer review is great but three such peer reviews in just over three weeks strikes me as a bit much. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  You'd get fewer S Marshall close reviews if there were more people going through the RfC close backlog doing the heavy lifting. Just a thought.—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  If this is directed specifically at me I'll note that I spent time yesterday on closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you! That's a big help, and not just in the labour of closing; it's also making me feel less like King Canute.  :)—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think this should be overturned. The close did not take into account the relative strengths of the rationales. For example, arguments for UNDUE were successful countered by arguments made later in the RfC. Also, at least one of the No !votes are actually yes votes. For example, BetsyRMadison argues that if this is included the 2019 allegation of neck touching should be included. The funny thing is the 2019 neck touching allegation is in the lead with detail. This means that BetsyRMadison is not opposed to the penetration is mentioned since the neck touching is. Almost all the No !votes falter to make a good policy based argument. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)\

(comment) To: C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) - You misrepresented my "No, the lead should not include" vote, please try not misrepresenting what I say or how I vote on an RfC in the future. The timestamp of my No vote is: "12:47, 26 April 2020." On that date, at that time here is what the lead looked like, "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Senate staff assistant of Joe Biden, alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in a Capitol Hill office building in 1993. A Biden spokesperson said that the allegation was false." My "No" vote has not changed from when I first voted on the RfC. I am still a firm "No." BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly fine close given the circumstances. Not sure why people would think we would put an unproven allegation like that in the lead anyway but there you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha I completely missed this was the specific sexual assault article rather than his bio. God we have some crap tabloid stuff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The interpretation of the discussion's outcome as "no consensus" was in my view the most reasonable view, and the assertion that this results in a return to the status quo ante is correct. The subsequent analysis of what exactly the status quo ante was is also spot on. There is therefore no reason to reverse this close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse.

It was a good close. Failing that, it was most certainly "good enough" a close.

From a Wikipedia perspective, I believe the close, if it erred, correctly erred on the conservative side, which is to not include details of allegations. This is straight WP:BLP. It is also highly desirable for Wikipedia to keep out of the newspapers, especially on current politics. Wikipedia must not become the source of newspaper information on details of Biden's sexual assault allegation, and there is considerable danger of this with the story going cold, and some people possibly wanting to revive it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, it is false that not mentioning exactly what "sexual assault" means is the more favorable and more conservative option, BLP-wise. The lead should be able to stand as mini-article. If a reader just read the lead section, they would be left to assume that Joe Biden raped her in the "traditional" sense, that he penetrated her with his penis. The allegation is nothing close to that. Reade only alleges that he reached under her close and penetrated her with his finger. Leave that out actually leads to a conclusion that is worse. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The wording in question during the RfC is still present in the body, at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Sexual assault allegation. Should the detail be in the lede? The version under discussion had the lede sentence referenced to five sources, three of which made no mention of this detail, two did. There are a number of style problems here, not content. It is tabloid style to lede with salacious details. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If you really think the detail belongs in the lede, I suggest that you would do better to focus on a better styled lede than to re-litigate the edits of 23 April 2020. The RfC close does not lock content in stone, but is a stepping stone to move forward from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not tabloid-y to describe the allegation the lead of the article about the allegation. That some "think of the children" argument. There is no other way to say that she alleges he put his finger in her vagina than to come out and just say it. Because that is the allegation, the whole point of the article. However, none of that is relevant to this closure review. The closer still failed to account for the strengths of the arguments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As for "The RfC close does not lock content in stone", I tried it this way. Let's see how long it takes before someone cites this RfC to revert my new attempt to describe the allegation in clinical terms. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Special:Diff/963893057. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noting here that I've partially read through the RFC and the close, and I'm uncomfortable with some aspects of the close, and also with obnoxious conduct some of of the RFC participants that possibly warrants intervention in its own right. It's late here so I'll look again tomorrow and see if I have anything more specific to say. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse your close and SmokeyJoe makes very good points. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, maybe try engaging further on your talk page substantively before bringing the next WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to the admin boards. As already mentioned, once a week may be too much. I realize these are contentious closes, but to use myself as an example, sometimes, they simply end like this. El_C 20:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm starting to wonder whether there should be an RfC review page, analagous to Deletion Review.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe. But attempting a substantive discussion with the closer first on their user talk page is an imperative I'd like to see apply to pretty much to any CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 13:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pleasantly surprised to see how thoughtful the discussion between yourself and the person on your talk was. Not common you see objections worded so well. I don't think your closure went beyond the scope of the RfC. Respondents, myself included, did not appear to pay particular attention to the specific wording presented in the question, and rather focused on the idea of including further information on the nature of the sexual offence. I believe the scope of your closure correctly addressed the issue. As for scrutiny on whether the decision was correct, I have a bias in the matter, as a respondent, so my opinion would not be particularly helpful. By the way, the reasoning in your non-obvious closures from your RfC close log are a pleasure to read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the kind words regarding my request to S Marshall. A review of his close tells us that he invested a great deal of thought and time into the process and clearly earns our respect and understanding. S Marshall is an excellent editor, and there is no doubt that he wants what is best for the project. We aren't always on the same page, but I would certainly support him in an RfA. My biggest concern over the close was more process-related in that it went beyond the RfC statement which focused only on the graphic details of the assault, not to exclude all mention of it. Another concern I have is NPOV, and the fact that there is no mention of anything related to his controversial behavior in the lead despite it being a high profile controversy that belongs in the lead per our PAGs. The absence of it drew a bit of attention from media per the following examples: Real Clear Politics, The Atlantic, Daily Kos (not reliable but probably read by people who read WP). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Like everyone else, I would encourage S Marshall to become an admin. With that said, I have to say I find Atsme's objections to the close persuasive and think we ought to overturn it, taking into consideration the relative strengths of the arguments. As at least one editor above missed, the article in question here is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, not Joe Biden, and to leave out a basic description of the titular allegation as UNDUE, as many no !votes argued, frankly stretches the bounds of credulity. Similarly, the "it's gross" !votes pretty clearly went against the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The count was already leaning toward include (18-12, by Atsme's count), so after taking into consideration the above, it seems there is a consensus to include. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Review of recent RfC closure (Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities)

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

---

Several editors - including me - have expressed surprise and disagreement with S Marshall's recent closure of this RfC. There has been discussion on S Marshall's User Talk page and the WikiProject's Talk page. I am requesting a review of this closure. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: I welcome community scrutiny and if I closed that wrongly, then I'm happy to be overturned here. My close stands on three feet, and my close should only be allowed to stand if all three of them are correct.

1) I think that WP:SUBJECTIVE applies to creative works and it is overreaching to apply it to universities. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

2) I think that it's a discussion closer's role to apply policies, including policies that none of the debate participants brought up. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

3) I think that WP:NOT, which wasn't brought up by anyone in the debate, favours P1. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

In the light of the feedback I got last time, I've honestly done my best to defend the close on my talk page :-\.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very well-reasoned close. If you want it overturned, you're going to need another RfC with more participants I reckon. Guy (help!) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this the place where we discuss how wrong the close was or is the discussion already linked above sufficient? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's the place where we look at the close and see if it's reasonable, which IMO it is. FWIW, I think almost all subjective rankings are UNDUE in leads, as the close notes - that applies to "List of 100 best X" lists, annual rankings and the rest. Objective facts are different: graduate employment rate, for example, or the percentage of graduates from a law school who get a job in the law, those are not subjective. My old school is objectively one of the oldest in the world, but any judgment of its academic ranking is likely to be highly subjective. Guy (help!) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to with a RfC that had five of the fifteen participating editors in favor of omitting all mention of this kind of information in the lede of these articles no matter how well supported by exceptionally high quality sources and thoroughly discussed in the body of the article. If you genuinely believe that then you should have participated in the RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I would have participated if I had known it was going on. Guy (help!) 16:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It was widely advertised; I personally placed notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and Wikipedia Talk:Neutral point of view. And of course it was also listed with all other RfCs in the places where they're listed e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. ElKevbo (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, didn't say it wasn't. I did not see it though. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It really does feel like non-admin closures get far more scrutiny and pushback than admin closures no matter how reasoned or well-explained the closure is.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors or what they do but I would be doing the same thing if an administrator had closed this discussion using the same rationale that has been used. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, of course, since you "lost", but it's a plainly well-reasoned close. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking that it be reviewed because it's poorly reasoned. Accusing me of a being a poor loser is a personal attack and you should retract it with an apology. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't read that as a personal attack at all. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's not an attack, it's completely normal for people to kvetch about a close that goes against them. Guy (help!) 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a well-reasoned and reasonable close, based on the stated policies. Could it have been closed differently? Given the low turnout and the less-than-perfect clarity of some relevant policies, yes, someone else could have closed it differently - I'd probably be torn between closing it as option 1 and option 2 myself (though I'd need more time to finally decide). As the decision was so close, I don't think we should rule out a second RfC. If someone decides to start one, I'd suggest some wider (and obviously non-canvassing) publicity would help attract more contributors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a suitable close to me. Certainly not a clear one, and definitely not an easy close. It for sure is not wide enough off the mark for it to be reopened, but a second RfC isn't a problem either. Closer did a good job in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lowly non-administrator here, just asking for advice: do you think it might be better to have a simpler "should they be included at all" RfC or "should they be restricted at all" RfC first, and then a secondary RfC second to decide what restrictions/inclusions should be the default consensus, or better to have a similar RfC again just with wider input? Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't say the subject especially interests me, and i probably wouldn't have participated, even had i known about the RfC. That being said, i think S Marshall did a very good job with the close. The reasoning is solid, all three feet are firm and make the whole thing stable, and his defence/explanation here and on his talk page is clear, simple, and easy to follow. The close should be upheld; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• In order to get into the weeds here, I decided to do my own review of the RfC and see where I differed from S Marshall. I think S Marshall got this pretty much right on with one exception: I think there was weak support for P3 and not P1, but I also think that the rest of the reasoning was correct, and that the fact I think there was weak support for P3 actually doesn't change anything about what S Marshall's conclusion of the rule was. Concluding rankings and "prestigious" should not be used to describe schools in the ledes of articles, but describing a school as "Oxbridge" or "Russell Group" or "Ivy League" or by one of its associations reflects the discussion. In any case, a quick search of the word "prestigious" shows it's often used in articles about academics, or about groups of universities - IE Business School was the first one to come up, and that clearly needs editing. Good close overall. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Close is reasonable. I agree with Sporting Flyer about P3 though. From S Marshall's statement, it seems like this is borderline no consensus; essentially, we should be cautious in describing prestige and err on the side of saying too little. I think in practice that will be closer to P3 than P1. It's not worth overturning since it's an accurate close, but I would recommend a second RfC (probably advertised at WP:CENT) which is more open ended than a straw poll. The other two options only focused on citations but neglected a lot of other editorial considerations, and using Marshall's close as a starting point to discuss what is acceptable is probably a better use of time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with overturning to no consensus. I don't think there will be much of a difference and would still recommend a second RfC, but others seem to think overturning to no consensus is better which is reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would overturn. The NOT argument is made only by the closer. The reason this is bad is not just because it is an interpretation of just one editor, the closer, so can't be anything like a consensus application, but on the merits it is unsupported except by the closer's ipsa dixit (closers are not suppose to make arguments). The discussing editors, if they had discussed NOT, could point to Encyclopedia Britannica which for Harvard says 'prestigious' in its lead,[1] and its Oxford entry, says 'great' in its lead [2]. It's thus entirely dubious -- and should have been discussed in the discussion and not by the single closer -- that those words are NOT encyclopedic in a university encyclopedia article lead. This is especially so, in light of the discussion that did occur that a lead is suppose to orient the reader, distinguishing the subject per WP:LEAD (distinguishing does often call for an adjective or two), and editors in the discussion did rely on LEAD, contra the close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As this is still open, and considering the additional comments below, including by the closer, I would note that overturning is still my position but even stronger. As shown below by, inter alia, Melanie, the closer improperly rejected the consensus of the experienced editors, who had explicitly rejected the closer's preferred choice. Moreover, the logic of the closer's NOT/Promo supervote falls apart on close inspection. If we were to follow the closer's logic, we would have to say alleged "promo" is not allowed in the lead, but it is fine in the body of the article. (More likely the closer has a skewed view of NOT/Promo, which is not consensus, but how could it be as only the closer made that argument.) The close just can't be right (including on NPOV) -- we follow RS in what they say good or bad, and just because the closer does not approve of certain words/concepts that RS use in discussing and distinguishing subjects, we don't ban those words and concepts from parts of whole classes of articles, as the closer would have it. In addition, on SUBJECTIVE, the close is very weak because even if you buy the closer's narrow interpretation of SUBJECTIVE, it does not follow that SUBJECTIVE is exclusive, so that it bans everything it does not explicitly cover -- SUBJECTIVE is not even remotely written so as to force a ban on words/concepts in the way the closer would construe it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. P2 and P3 are much more similar to each other than P1; I don't see supporters of either of them who listed P1 as their second choice. I see 4 !votes in favor of P1, and 11 against, or only 27% support. In order to find a consensus in favor of something with such a skewed percentage against, the opposing side has to be completely without merit, which is not the case here by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Now, the fact that the arguments presented by P1 supporters are on average stronger is, however, a reason to not declare consensus in favor of the side with 73% of the !vote. Therefore I think "no consensus" is the best outcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I weighted each vote (and discarded one P3 vote) since some users picked multiple options and weighted their preferences, and P3 came out slightly ahead. I wouldn't call it a 73-27% vote, especially with three options. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I participated in the RfC, my reading of the consensus is that we should overturn the close. It was (as is true of all of S Marshall's closes) thoroughly considered, but it had two significant issues. Copying my previous comment on them:

First, [the closer] writes that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.
Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm rather concerned by point 2 of S Marshall's three legs - in an AfD that would raise serious eyebrows, where we prefer closers who see non-applicable arguments participate rather than super-closing on those grounds. I'd always assumed that that held true for RfC closes as well. Were some clear policy not subject to local exceptions violated by all the reasoning I could a NC being warranted, but that isn't the instance here. It's absolutely well considered, but I'd say it's valid, not sound. Weak overturn, pending possible change if individuals think my reasoning is the case with RfCs too Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is absolutely key. Nobody in the debate mentioned WP:NOT, and without that, we've got no prohibition on promotional or advocacy editing. I interpolated it. If I was wrong then my close must be overturned.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close and thank S Marshall for their work. The reason they get attention here is that they are stepping up and closing difficult RfCs—thanks. Re the RfC issue, in six months another RfC with some realistic examples might be considered—it's all very well to imagine a perfect world where a very reliable source says X is the greatest and that gets copied to the lead, but the implications of that need to be considered in examples. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn I find two problems with this close and believe it should be overturned. First, he claims “no consensus on the numbers alone” and proceeds to ignore the numbers. But if you actually tally the comments, as I just now did: (correcting my tally since I missed one. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC))

• 14 15 people commented.
• P1 was preferred by 3 4 (one unclear), opposed by 8 (several strongly), 3 did not state
• P2 was preferred by 6 (several qualified with a hedge about sources/wording), second choice for 2, opposed by 2 3 (one weak, one unclear), 4 did not state
• P3 was preferred by 6, second choice for 4, 1 2 (one strong), 3 did not state

It is impossible to see how this discussion could be closed in favor of P1. I would have interpreted it as a choice between P2 and P3, exact wording to be determined by discussion - with P1 having been soundly rejected by a majority of commenters.

Second, he notes that people mentioned NPOV and did not bring up NOT - but then raises NOT and PEA himself as arguments. In effect he was casting a supervote.

He comments on the paucity of contributions. That should not surprise anyone given that WikiProject:Higher Education is not a high profile site or on many people’s watchlist. Reopening it now after the rest of Wikipedia has been made aware of it should give a more reliable result. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Could you please explain more clearly how you reached the conclusion that there was a "weak consensus in favor of P1", when a majority of the commenters (8 out of 14) specifically opposed P1? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, with pleasure.
  I began by looking at the debate at a superficial level and totting up the number of editors in favour of each position, so as to give myself a benchmark. I found that on the numbers, there was no consensus.
  I then proceeded to read the history and background of the debate, so as to understand what was going on. The conclusions I reached were:
  1) The history is remarkably complex and detailed, but I needed to understand all the contributing editors as suitably responsible and experienced Wikipedians; and
  2) A key triggering incident was when editors decided it would be appropriate to allow Harvard University to describe itself as "prestigious" in the lead of its Wikipedia article (a decision apparently based on the Encyclopaedia Britannica's wording); and
  3) Although the debate was certainly begun in good faith and on the basis of what the drafters believed was in Wikipedia's best interests, it nevertheless represented an attempt by a WikiProject to establish a separate ruleset for articles within its own purview. Specifically, it was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising.
  I then found myself in an unusual position because none of the editors involved had invoked WP:NOT. Nobody at all had bluelinked it, and I initially wavered about whether it would be right to apply a policy that nobody bluelinked in the debate. I then consulted WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to see if it contained any guidance about what to do. I found: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. I raised an eyebrow, and then moved on to the final paragraph which states: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests.
  Now, I've got a longstanding view on IAR from spending so many years reviewing consensus-related decisions at DRV, and it's this: I think that a local consensus to ignore the rules can't be implied. I think that it's OK to IAR if the rule in question has been brought up in the debate, considered by the participants, and explicitly rejected as inapplicable or inappropriate; but it's not OK to IAR silently.
  Then I reflected on Wikipedia's attitude to promotional language in articles. I noted that Wikipedia is very attractive to those who want to use our encyclopaedia to market their products or promote their business, and Wikipedians have had to become highly sensitive to promotion. We tend to take a very hard line on it. I decided that the consensus against any form of promotional language is very old and very strong indeed. Taking those factors into consideration, I decided (rightly or wrongly) that even if the debate participants were oblivious to WP:NOT, it still applied to them. I recognized that this was a potentially controversial thing for me to decide, and therefore I needed to say explicitly in the close that I had made that decision.
  I have reflected on it long and hard since, and I still feel it was the right choice.
  Once I had given myself those directions I re-weighted the votes, and here is where I depart hard from the thought process that you and King of Hearts have displayed here. I understand from what you and King of Hearts have posted that you feel that I as a closer can weigh the votes, but the acceptable range of weights I can give is constrained: in other words, as closer, I'm not allowed to give a vote from a good faith Wikipedian a weight of 0, or 0.001. The acceptable range might be, for example, from 0.5 to 1.5.
  On this point, I simply disagree with you. I think it's possible for a contribution to a debate to be not just diminished, but totally blown out of the water, by subsequent contribution. So for example, in a deletion debate, if Editor A says: "Delete. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources", and then Editor B links a long string of reliable sources that cover the subject, then the weight I would give to Editor A is not 0.5, or 0.3, but zero.
  In the light of this, I gave DGG's contribution to that debate a very high weighting indeed, because it introduced a lot of considerations that previous editors had not reflected on and which were not refuted by anyone else. I think that you and King of Hearts would view the weighting I gave to that contribution as inappropriately high and not within my reach as closer, but on the matter of how much weight is permissible, I respectfully disagree with you.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

totting up the number of editors in favour of each position So in other words, in your initial evaluation of the discussion you looked only at supports - and ignored opposes? I suggest that is an approach you should change from now on. Oppose !votes are every bit as significant as support !votes, sometimes more so. In the future please try to get a sense of what each person is actually SAYING with their comment. As you can see, I tally several types of !vote: "support", "second choice" or "acceptable", "oppose", and “did not state a clear position". That approach clearly shows that very few people supported P1 and a majority opposed it. By tallying only supports, then embarking on your own analysis of policy, you completely missed the clear consensus AGAINST P1. For that matter, even the bare “support” tally of 3 for P1, 6 for P2, and 6 for P3 should have indicated that this was not an inconclusive discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC, I have refrained from commenting here, however, I have to object to your statement that the RFC was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE (a policy you yourself have referenced many times in this discussion) "it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers." Thus, discussing a school's reputation -- positive or negative -- cannot violate WP's rules concerning advertisement and promotion provided the information is verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Calidum 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. I start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers and proceed to analysis of the arguments.

Calidum, it is my position that WP:SUBJECTIVE does not apply to universities or institutes of higher learning. When I read it, I can see a rule that with all due respect is clearly meant to apply to creative and artistic works. Although I admire the ingenious arguments and skilful phrasing that you use to contend that it stretches to universities, I see that as quite mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If your interpretation were correct that the portion of SUBJECTIVE I quoted applies only to creative works (despite the sentence beginning "more generally"), countless articles across Wikipedia would need to be scrubbed to adhere to it. Antonin Scalia, for instance, is clearly not a work of art, yet we note "he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history." Nor could we say Sandy Koufax has been called "one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history" and "one of the outstanding Jewish athletes in American sports." And forget about saying Charles Darwin has been called "one of the most influential figures in human history." Calidum 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: RE  I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. You don’t see it? I grant you, only two commenters put the word “oppose” in bold, so it was necessary to actually read the comments to see what they are saying - but don’t you read all the way through the comments before starting to draw a conclusion? If you don’t, how can you be a closer of discussions? If you had read the comments, here is what you would have found: Both User:WhatamIdoing and User:RedHotPear put “oppose P1” in bold. User:EEng said ~P1, using the ~ symbol for “not” to show opposition, and providing a link to explain it. User:ElKevbo said “P1 is unacceptable”. User:Sdkb said “oppose P1”. User:Dhtwiki said “P1 is too severe and, I would guess, difficult to enforce.” User:Jonathan A Jones described P1 as “a counsel of despair too far”. User:Calidum said “P1 is a non-starter.” That’s eight opposes, a majority of the commenters. You "start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers," but there is. A very clear consensus "in the numbers" against P1. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said: What I see in the numbers is no clear winner; therefore I start the weighing process; and when I start weighing I get to the outcome I did. I don't see it as helpful, or appropriate, to subtract P1 from the range of possible outcomes "on the numbers" before the weighing process starts. I'm afraid that I don't intend to offer any further replies on this point, although I'd welcome you raising anything else that you feel unclear about.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• With regret, I have to agree with overturn to no consensus here. That was a masterpiece of a closing statement and a genuinely noble attempt to wring a consensus out of a discussion; but I just don't think that discussion reached a consensus. While I really get the reasoning used, there is a limit to how one can weight votes, and P1 was explicitly objected to by quite a lot of participants. While I probably agree with P1 personally, if I was going to try and pull a consensus out of that discussion I probably would have leant towards P2 as the explicit compromise position, but I think I might have felt slightly off doing even that. I'm also on record previously as generally objecting to closers pulling out new arguments and policies in closes; as reasonable as S Marshall's genuinely were here, it almost always ends up smelling a bit like a supervote. Really great points were made in the close, but this feels like a discussion that needs more participation. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I think it was a damn fine closing giving a clear rationale, better than most, that actually had policy grounds, and hope S Marshall keeps up the good work. However, one of the "legs" is in dispute. We are to close discussions (when it is needed) by "careful analysis of the discussion". At issue is if an editor (or Admin) can "interpolate". If this is allowed can it be done in such a way to not give the appearance of a super vote. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus states: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy and the closer should not personally select which is the better policy. In between these two there can be some confusion: those that flatly contradict established policy but this becomes more clear with: The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. This indicates that if it is not brought up it cannot be used even if clear policies and guidelines appear to be justifiable for use. King of Hearts brought up a good point but "IF" comments in a minority of "consensus" are stronger, 'using policy backing', then consensus on a local or project level cannot trump policy or the more broad community consensus. In other words it can't change policy as that would be the wrong place. Even WP:IGNORE (that was not brought up) cannot be assumed and must have clear consensus if contested. Again, there is confusion as noted in the next section (Policy) that states: As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. There are three named instances that are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus., so apparently some "interpolating" is allowed but narrowly defined. It is my opinion that these two sections need some work. Until then we have to go with what we have until it is changed. -- Otr500 (talk)

• Procedural Overturn by reason of vague instructions leading to confusion, and because contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing. The discussion should be continued for more clarity now and for future discussions. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, sure. In this like in everything else, Wikipedian guidelines are vague. They're like scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of mutually contradictory rules and guidelines, you can find support for any position. It's true that you can view Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus as directly contradicting WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS if you like, but I think that's the wrong way to understand it. You follow Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus to see if a consensus emerges, and if one doesn't, then thats when you move to WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. That's the only way I can reconcile the two, anyway. I think it would be a serious mistake to clarify them any further, because when you codify the consensus-reaching process in too much detail, you're also handing an instruction manual to bad faith actors about how to game the system.
  When you say "contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing", I'm afraid I differ from you very strongly. I think that while the discussion here hasn't yet reached a conclusion on whether I was right on this particular matter, it does demonstrate a clear consensus that I may appropriately close difficult discussions: in other words, the community rejects your credentialism on this point.
  To my eyes, the other consensus that clearly emerges is that the outcome should be neither an overturn nor an endorsement but a relisting for a more widely-advertised discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I greatly respect S Marshall, and in particular his willingness to make hard closes and for his detailed explanation of those closes. But in this case I think I have to agree with MelanieN. The close was a bit too much of his own thoughts and not enough of the discussion that was had. It would have been much better as a comment/!vote rather than a close. As far as admin status goes, I trust S Marshall to make closes like this more than just about any admin. I just think he got this one wrong. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • And I think a relist with much broader advertising would be the best way forward. Second best is to go with NC. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Hobit that holding a second RFC might be helpful. I encourage anyone who would like to do that to stop by WP:RFC and discuss ways of making it clear. For example, "P1", which S Marshall endorsed, could usefully be followed with examples:
      • N Do not say "Founded in 1636, Harvard College is the original school of Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and among the most prestigious in the world" (which was added to the lead of Harvard College almost nine years ago by EEng, who supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC)
      • N Do not say "It is highly selective, with fewer than five percent of applicants being offered admission in recent years" (same article, added by RedHotPear last year; "highly selective" is an widely used and objective ranking system)
      • N Do not say "For-Profit U has the weakest entrance requirements, the lowest graduation rates in Country, and the highest debt load among departing students. It was described by Paul Politician, in a lawsuit to strip its accreditation, as 'an exploitative diploma mill created for no obvious purpose beyond enriching its founder'." (that's "ranking" and "reputation", so would be banned even if it's true, and even if the article has little to say about the organization except that its rankings are poor and its reputation is worse)
    • I think that giving specific examples in terms of effects would help people decide whether their votes matched the outcomes they actually wanted to see. I suspect that a rule that says "Do not include USN&WR rankings" would gather more support than "Don't admit that Harvard is prestigious". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

      • First of all, the text I inserted back in 2011 [3] was, in fact, that Harvard College is one of the most presigious in the world, so I really don't know why I'm being dragged into this "prestige" business.
      • That was in the article Harvard College – at the time a complete mess I was taking a machete to (so that today it's no longer a complete mess but merely mostly a mess). At that time Harvard University had said that it was "one of the most prestigious in the world" since at least sometime in 2010, and I'm pretty sure that I simply plagiarized that.
      • I don't know where you get the idea that I supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC. I flatly opposed P1, and preferred P2 over P3.
      • You're just calling me out because you went to Yale.

      EEng 23:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK I'm happy this needs relisting. Please could a previously uninvolved person kindly close this discussion as "consensus to relist for a more widely-advertised discussion", vacate my previous close, and replace it with a pointer to WT:RFC for the drafting discussion that WhatamIdoing suggests?—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with relisting, but oppose a "new RfC". The consensus here is to overturn the close and reopen the discussion - not to abandon it and start a new one. And we should not add interpretation or examples, like the (deliberately ridiculous?) ones proposed by WhatamIdoing. The question should be the same as the one already answered by 15 people, and should not be changed or modified in a way which might oblige previous discussants to reconsider their comments. We should respect all the thought which has already gone into this. So, no pointer to a drafting discussion, no changes in the questions posed. Any discussion can be done in the Discussion section of the RfC. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, that's not the consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Catflap08 appeal

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

---

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From user talk:Catflap08:

It has been more than three years that I have been banned from editing the English language version of Wikipedia. Ever since I was still able to edit the German language version of Wikipedia without any major incidents – including rather contentious issues. What I learned from the events leading up to my ban here is that it is a good idea to rethink issues overnight (or maybe even two, three … nights) when engaging in discussions on controversial issues. If this appeal is successful I do not intend to edit Wikipedia proper right away. I am perfectly aware of the fact that I would probably be under close watch and therefore use the time to make use of my sandbox instead. There are a number of stubs that I would like to work on by translating already existing German or Czech articles – only when approved by a majority of fellow editors I would ask for them to be moved into mainspace. Due to circumstances (Corona/Covid-19) I have even less time to focus on Wikipedia so my first steps in editing en.wikipedia will probably be rather small. It is not my intention to comment on past incidents without being specifically asked to do so.

I would note:

• Email and talk page access was withdrawn in June 2019 due to allegations of abuse.
• Most of the complaints were probably by Hijiri88, now indeffed for violation of an IBAN.
• I think the last appeal; was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306 § Site ban appeal from Catflap08
• I lost the will; to live about halfway though this lot.

Catflap08 posted an unblock request which I declined procedurally because I think that, given the extensive past history, it's a heavy lift for a single admin. Guy (help!) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Link for the SiteBan
• Okay, I've read the modern stuff and the key bits of the original causes. I have not read every dispute. If we have someone active on de-wiki who could take a look there, that would be appreciated. Post-ban abuse is always concerning. However, I'm interested if there's an indication of major issues with any other editors in the past 2 years or so? If Catflap's primary difficulties were not being able to play nice with Hijiri88 that's concerning, but perhaps makes me more inclined to extend a chance with a risk factor now absent. TBAN should probably remain, with at least 6 months before it can be appealed to ARBCOM (I suppose it could be viewed as community 6 month TBAN that then lapses, leaving just the ARBCOM one). I'm not sure why catflap says "approved by a majority of fellow editors", but if we want a "create only be AfC" that seems reasonable. Willing to consider, but pending various bits of information. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have always felt that the ArbCom restriction from way back when was a bit unfair to Catflap, but there was little to be done about it, and the behavior that led to the block (linked above by Nosebagbear) was very unfortunate. But that was three years ago. I support letting Catflap back in. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Back when he was active, most of the problems were related to Hijiri88, I was involved with more of those issues than I care to recall. I want to be clear in stating that I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance, including Catflap, but it comes with a great deal of hesitation. Blocks are cheap but drama is expensive. While I don't remember all the details (and not willing to drag up the old discussions to refresh my memory), what sticks out most was how Catflap could be a parasite with administrative time. Do I think Catflap is a net positive? Barely, and sometimes, no. Still, if I apply the same principles here that I apply with other editors, then I'm 51% for lifting the community ban that is in place. And obviously this would be a last chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I've always thought interaction bans shouldn't become unappealable just because the other person has left Wikipedia. On the other hand, the admin actions leading to Hijiri88's indef block while individually defensible collectively amount to a rather cruel persecution and so I think a UTRS request in six months or so is both likely and has a good chance of success. And if these two editors then start screaming at each other again it'll be yet more needless drama. I'm with Dennis Brown on this one. 51% support. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like some comment from Catflap08 on their use of email Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed? to try and communicate with Hijiri88. While I believe they stopped when asked [4], I question the first email in 2017 and then even more so the one in 2018 which was after the one in 2017 had been responded to and as I understand it concerned edits to the English Wikipedia when they were long site banned at that point. While I understand that Catflap08 may not have been happy with Hijiri88 mentioning them, and IMO Hijiri88 did have a tendency to mention long blocked or banned editors a bit too much, ultimately when your site banned you've mostly lost the right to complain about it. Except perhaps if you feel those editors clearly violate some policy and guideline in which case it would be better to approach an admin or arbcom about that. Complaining to the person who made the comments who you had a long contentious history with when you weren't banned doesn't seem to be a good idea. BTW, in case there's some confusion, I believe the last email was in November 2018. Hijiri88 suggested that Catflap08 may have been using other accounts to email them, but there didn't seem to be good evidence for this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?. Also was Catflap08 really still following Hijiri88's activities here in June 2019, when Catflap08 had been long banned? These sequence of edits do seem a little weird [5] [6], and Catflap08's previous response was shall we say, less than ideal [7]. (The fact that Catflap08 was aware Hijiri88 mentioned them less so since they may have simply not turned off pings for en Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?.) I'm not really sure why Hijiri88 noticed what Catflap08 was up to on the German Wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another place and time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Catflap08's problems stem, as others have said, from longstanding conflict with one other editor. The ban might have been necessary, but I can't help feeling it was a bit tough - based on people getting sick and tired of seeing the two of them constantly at each other's throats. That conflict is not going to continue now, at least not in the short term, for obvious reasons. With these things in mind, and having read Catflap08's comments (which I think show proper understanding and committment), I support lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Lifting ban per response below. NHS2008 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear: Do you have anything to add (since you said you'll consider)? Or else I'll close this up. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: - I think I could be posited as a "weak support of unban". The level of concerns would usually be associated with stringent unblock restrictions but I'm not sure any are coming to mind. Please do take this as support for any ERs that the unblocking admin feels are beneficial, otherwise Catflap should just take it as further clarity for care in minimising drama. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Catflap08 response

Transcluded from User talk:Catflap08:

• Cat, you might want to address one question at WP:AN, which is reasonable to ask. You can reply here, someone will copy and paste your response. Your request has stalled until you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular question you have in mind? I will study the comments already made and hopefully will be able to address some issues by the weekend.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• • If you read the discussion, you will find that Nil Einne has raised some issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I will to my best to address questions and issues here. I am aware of the fact that you have to make a serious decision. Please also be aware of the fact that I did not leave the project completely even though there was a period that I was extremely peeved at Wikipedia (some of you even at me). I did continue my work on the German Wikipedia, which operates on a similar set of rules (similar, but not entirely the same). Lately I focused on translating articles (that’s before that virus kicked in). I still have a small stack of articles I’d like to translate into German (mostly Scotland related issue). That’s where I felt how the current ban affects me most – I cannot ask any questions on en.wikipedia. We are all facing a pandemic, so I am not in any rush with editing at all – at the moment I hardly even do any major edits on de.wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a purpose in life to me, it’s a hobby. Now and again I sit here to check pending edits only – that’s where the German and English Wikipedia run slightly different.

@ Nosebagbear I have no intention to see the TBAN being lifted any time soon. As far as I know that would need an extra appeal. Your idea with AfC is actually what I had in mind. There are a few stubs on the English Wikipedia that I could expand by translating existing articles. My sandbox is probably the best place for that.

@ Nil Einne I hope that I won’t come across as rude, but you are putting me in an awkward position. Your questions deal with a certain individual and as I already stated, I do not intend to continue that conflict … and as surprisingly this may come across … I do consider it bad practice to discuss an absent editor. This comment [8] reflects the advice given to me when I previously raised some of the incidents you mentioned to admins … I would summarise it as: let it go, don’t mention them. You are referring to my use of the Unreferenced Template on de.wikipedia. I do at times use that template. I use it when articles provide no references and sources whatsoever. If no references are being added (after a few weeks or months) I do at times nominate articles for deletion – usually its only then that somebody will come along and place a reference or two, which to me is fair enough then – problem solved. And you are right, on my German user page I list a number of keywords that make life on Wikipedia difficult, but also what may inspires one stay and continue. This is also why I created the article about a German organisation called HateAid [9]. I did bump into some, let’s say, right-wing motivated editors on de.wikipedia. It’s important not to fall in the same trap as they do. If ones actions are guided by anger nothing good is going to come out of that – I learned that the hard way on different occasions here on en.wikipedia. What another editor may have had on their mind or not I cannot answer. On de.wikipedia I tend to correspond in German, not in English. The editor you are referring to do have a talk page history over there too. Some edit summaries are in English. On de.wikipedia there is a button called “E-Mail an diesen Benutzer senden” (Email this user) and I made use of it.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

FriendlyRiverOtter appeal, please lift COVID ban before July 8, no real offense

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 —> Proposal (FriendlyRiverOtter)

I’ve successfully edited COVID articles since mid-March. And not a single case of, ‘Oh, I’m going to self-righteously do it anyway.’ Nope, not one.

Nay an edit war to be found.

The whole issue stems from Talk pages. Frankly, I think the problem is that I responded to admins as if we were equal citizens. At least half a dozen different admins made a statement to the effect, ‘not getting the message’ or ‘need to send a message’ or similar. Wow. Watch even one mob movie and that’s a common refrain, as if a clear inferior is not picking up on a hierarchy.

So, the standard is that one must immediately kowtow to an admin?

I hope not, but it sure looks that way. My responses are easily above a threshold of politeness and civility. From my long sports site experience, if someone makes a reasoned argument, I try to make a response in turn, time permitting. I don’t even stack responses to one person when I think of new things. I think it’s just the fact that I made responses at all.

Several people implied that I tend to write long. That one I can take to heart (sports site vice!). I even closed an RfC well before 30 days as a show of good faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019&diff=prev&oldid=960776478
It wasn’t going anywhere, but it does illustrate that you can work with me.

But about a handful of admins wanted to squelch the very content of what I was saying, which is keeping with the header of MEDRS stating “common sense” and “occasional exceptions” and in keeping with our 5th Pillar, that we might want to consider also using primary sources for a new disease like COVID-19 and how we might do so.

So, it’s the content of the speech itself . . .

Well, first off, I think we’d owe an apology to the Chinese government, for all they’ve done is to follow the very human norm in place for generations and generations — hey, if it’s troublesome speech, we’re going to squelch it down. This new-fangled approach of trying mightily to draw a distinction between speech and conduct, well, we still don’t really know how it’s going to fully play out. But I think we should try it here in Wiki.

I might also use the analogy of religion, that if I were a Christian, Muslim, Baha’i, Hindu, etc, I think I could still make positive edits on articles on religion. And/or if I was in a workplace, I could certainly hold in my mind, how I think things should go and the idea that such is currently a minority position.

And maybe it takes a sports site person to say, Hey, you folks are at risk of losing good editors. And an additional thing regarding this business of ‘need to send a message,’ it’s one admin talking to another admin about an editor in the third person, when that editor is right there. And you could just ask them, hey, what do you see the problem as, and what do you see an interim improvement as?

The missed opportunity might be coaching up editors to the B+ level. And usually, a large amount of B+ work handily beats a small amount of A work.

On June 4, I offered:
“So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960714376

And I was making constructive COVID edits right until hours of the ban coming down: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=961461726

I ask that the ban please be lifted.

And whether it’s lifted or not, I plan to continue as a good citizen, primarily working on my edits, but occasionally and constructively talking about what I see as systemic problems or issues. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's going to expire in 9 days, why waste an AN thrashing on 9 days? @Guerillero: who implemented the tban. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, 9 days is 9 days, and with COVID heating up, I find myself itching to get back. In addition, if some admins are worried about their fellow guild of admins coming on too strong and driving off good editors, mine’s probably a pretty good case to look at. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say pay the $2 (i.e. wait the 9 days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if you withdraw this now, you can go back to the article in 9, closer to 8 now, days. If you leave this open, I'd say there is a 50/50 shot the tban would be extended. Cut your losses please. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. A long rambling message is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Given that this appeal seems to consist of attacking everyone who had a part in the sanction, no. And if you continue to agitate for the use of non-MEDRS sources for Covid articles when the ban expires, expect a longer one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, and I must add that you're being a little selective when you quote yourself as saying "So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?". Your actual subsequent agreement was "I agree to cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!)". The "one month (and probably longer!)" weasel clause means your actual commitment expires at the same time as your block, and so is meaningless. This appeal is almost a textbook example of not getting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There were two statements I made — the above one in my original post, and a second about seven hours later in which I also stated I had closed and archived my RfC, as well as the part which you quote, as well as my plans to continue positive edits in the articles themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960781261
And I did make positive COVID edits in our articles for several more days until the ban was imposed, such this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=961297979
about schools in Italy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any encouragement to extend the ban (we have a bad habit of doing that to appeals that don't really warrant them, poorly written as it is). However you attack a wide group of admins (with the likelihood it's them, not you, going down the bigger the pool), and fail to show clear, succinct, evidence that it's warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: thank you for taking a moderate position, and I know I have not made things easy for you. Yes, I have rather put myself in a box. If you could suggest a resolution which preserves respect on all sides, I’d probably be open to that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just as a point of fact: I was one of the editors who called for a topic ban, and I am not an admin. And the opening statement doesn't fill me with confidence about what will happen when the ban is lifted, because FriendlyRiverOtter is still arguing that the words "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" mean that WP:MEDRS can be ignored in the one article where it is the most important, because there's so much misinformation and premature information flying around in this area. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: why would MEDRS regarding Coronavirus be more important than MEDRS regarding heart attack or stroke, for example? (And people have delayed going to the emergency room with these symptoms precisely because of a fear of Coronavirus.) And I don’t think I’ve said, can ignore MEDRS. I think I’ve said, because of the header, carefully and judiciously . . and there’s a big difference. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I answered that question in my last sentence. The word "because" is a big clue that a reason follows. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• File this under the list of "Things you really don't want to say to have your TBAN lifted". RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a chance you made a mistake in your comment? Did you actually intend to ask for your topic ban to be extended rather than lifted? Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a WP:HELLNO for rationales like this? There ought to be one.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Quite possibly the worst appeal I have ever seen. This actually argues for an extension, not a lifting of the ban. Guy (help!) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I speak for myself, and also for fellow editors who have been driven off. And I’m making the rational criticism that in the absence of conduct issues, an edit ought not be banned for speech. And even more specifically, when admins use the mob-movie language of ‘send a message’ or ‘not getting a message’ or similar, there is probably a rush to judgment and/or rush to punishment.
In fact, I’d like to go back six months on the Incidents archives and see how common an issue this is. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, fill your boots, just don't expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if it's filtered through the set of assumptions we see at the top of this section. Guy (help!) 16:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Need to extend the TBAN Attacking other users while not addressing one's own behavior? Brilliant! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Given the response above mine, user is here to "right great wrongs"? Perhaps a TBAN is not sufficient. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: if I were criticizing the actions of one particular admin, that gets tricky. But if I’m talking about a common practice, as I am, that’s not an attack. Or let me ask you. What would you accept as a constructive way to put forward rational criticism of the system? (and I did acknowledge the fault of sometimes writing long.) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (6 month COVID ban) Friendly River Otter

Given the foregoing, propose extending TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to 6 months from the close of this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support (second choice). Guy (help!) 15:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice behind the proposal below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if the indefinite ban proposed below doesn't go through. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support only as a second option if the indefinite TBAN is not implemented. Grandpallama (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Second choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - All you had to do was wait a little over a week and the TBAN would have expired. If you are willing to stir drama right now, then I doubt it will be different when you return to editing the topic area. Darkknight2149 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (second choice) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Before anyone responds to the above proposal, I propose extending the TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to indefinite, appealable in six months here at AN. We've had far too much disruption from those who won't listen to the way the Community has mandated these articles be sourced, and it needs to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). Guy (help!) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). OK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The diatribes above clarify that this editor has no intention of following consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. The level of past disruption and the promise here of future disruption should not be ignored. Grandpallama (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the appeal shows very clearly that the editor doesn't understand the issues which lead to the ban. You can be disruptive without edit warring or being uncivil. Dealing with situations like this is a timesink for the type of editor we want to keep around. Hut 8.5 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. Part of having a block or a banned removed , from what I'm reading , is having the banned individual show an understanding of why this happened, at the bare minimum and I don't see that at all. Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think this was a thinly veiled attempt to continue to push their cause under the guise of a request to lift their ban early. Seems way too convenient. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't even say thinly veiled. I'd say this was as blatant as it gets.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Boing!'s rationale. I've looked at the other talk page posts the user has made since the ban, as well as their meandering reasonings above, and it is the same kind of disruption all over again. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The only cause I’m supporting right now is anti-bullying. Which I recognize immediately from my sports site background (although this is much more gentile and I thank you!) Yep, 10+ persons responding to thoughtful and rational criticism, and basically saying, this person’s no good, get rid of them, that’s bullying.
My main point is that when we jump to “need to send a message,” we jump almost all of the way to a pro-punishment position. And I maintain that that’s a pretty valid point.
By the way, this is why many persons in Third World countries don’t stand up for their legal rights. Because if they insist on rights they technically have, the system will up the ante.
So, we at Wikipedia believe in a democratic model, a de-centralized model. We believe the consensus process is a great way to have more discussion with better listening . . . . . except when it counts and then we don’t. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FriendlyRiverOtter please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY regarding your assertion that the community believes in a democratic model. Folly Mox (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are oppressed as if you are living in the Third World, and we are all bullies. Keep it up, and I predict someone will become exasperated enough to propose that banning you simply from a topic isn't enough. Grandpallama (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Geez Louise, you brought this on yourself with an unnecessary and bellicose appeal of a sanction that was going to expire in mere moments. You could have sat back, kept your mouth shut, and it would all be over, but no, you had to mount your soapbox and speak up for all "oppressed" editors everywhere - what a complete crock! Keep up this mode of behavior and, sooner or later, you'll be site banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not bullying, it's the community enforcing the sourcing requirements mandated by consensus for Covid-19 articles. And it's not "thoughtful and rational criticism" that led to where we are now, it's your belligerent, soapboxing, refusal to accept that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, with proposal 1 as second choice. Miniapolis 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice) - The "appeal" really only makes sense when interpreted as a battleground tactic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support – "I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them...." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support FriendlyRiverOtter displays a range of attitudes which tend to cause disruption on Wikipedia: self-righteousness, lack of understanding and self-awareness, a desire to attack others, long self-indulgent speeches, a total lack of clue, and an outspoken negative attitude toward admins - any one of those would be a cause for concern, but a combination of all of them is rather worrying. Given the circumstances I agree that FriendlyRiverOtter needs to show some understanding of why they were topic banned before lifting the ban. SilkTork (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: “desire to attack”? I said that this business of “need to send message” is both common and a rush to judgment. It’s certainly not an attack on any particular member. In fact, I’d said bringing up a common practice is at times really helpful for a group.
And “self-righteousness.” Checkmate. That’s the kind of thing, once raised, that anything I say is taken simply as evidence.
Would recent good edits on 2028 Summer Olympics help? I thought the most likely resolution would have been, Okay, you’ve had your say, so be it, yeah, what you bring up might be an issue, we’ll take it under advisement. And outside chance that I’ll help someone else down the road. But, um, . . . obviously not! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Best option for a case where no evidence of understanding the problem is seen. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal

Six months ago, I made a standard offer unblock request on this noticeboard. The reviewing admins had generously decided to give me another chance, while still reinstating my topic ban on all broadly construed topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Over the past six months, I've been editing articles outside of my topic ban area, and have not engaged in sock puppetry or edit warring. If the topic ban is removed, I promise I will continue to be a productive editor in my topic ban area as well. I understand if there will be any hesitation, given that I've appealed this topic ban before over 4 years ago. However, I'm now a lot older and more mature, and I'm also more familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I ask that the administration once again let me prove this not just with words, but actions as well, by removing my topic ban. If there are still any doubts, I would happily accept a 1RR condition in my topic ban area, so that I could further demonstrate I will edit constructively in this field. --Steverci (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging original sanctioning and unblocking admin @Callanecc: Nosebagbear (talk)

• I have some initial concerns, or at least areas of note. Callanecc Steverci has only edited a dozen articles in the six months, with the 25 edits I looked at all being references - I couldn't target more accurately because Callanecc Steverci is completely failing to use any edit summaries at all. Refs are absolutely vital, but for determining whether the editor can edit without causing problems in general text/disputable areas. Callanecc Steverci, could you give some details on what you'd like to edit in the TBAN areas, maybe with an example or two? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  You probably wanted to mention Steverci, not Callanecc--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  *self-trouts* apologies to both Nosebagbear (talk)

  I understand your concerns. The last time I tried to appeal a topic ban, Callanecc was concerned that I hadn't been active enough at editing. From what I can recall (and I apologize if I'm wrong), that was the only input I had ever gotten on how to edit while hoping to later appeal a topic ban. So I had tried to make a contribution almost every day. I had thought about making more bold edits in contentious topics to show I can handle them, but I thought getting into any kind of conflict would be considered not editing constructively. Concerning edits TBAN edits I'd like to make, there are a number of vandalism edits I've been waiting to revert such as here and here, but some articles I've wanted to expand and add a lot more citations to are Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian–Azerbaijani War, Georgian–Armenian War, Turkish–Armenian War, and some smaller related articles. --Steverci (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Steverci, those edits you would like to revert are potentially problematic, but they are not Wikipedia:Vandalism under Wikipedia's definition. As for the listed articles, they do not provide a good impression of moving beyond the need for a topic ban. Have you considered bold work on areas other than Armenian wars and related? There's a lot of work needed on Armenian articles unrelated to various conflicts. CMD (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear specifically asked me for articles related to the topic ban, which includes "broadly constructed" "ethnic conflicts". I'm mostly interested in editing Armenian articles, but also other things. But above I was told that my edits weren't good because they were too safe, so I gave some articles of more potentially contentious subjects, and now you say that it looks bad that I'm appealing the topic ban because I'd like to edit articles related to the topic ban. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your opening post then where one of the topics you stated was covered in your topic ban was Armenia as a whole, rather than just conflict-related topics. Can you clarify what you take to be the scope of your current ban? I mentioned the above because dropping a topic ban of Armenia would allow freedom to edit a wide range of articles, without being drawn back to areas that bring higher incidences of editing disputes. Desiring to work in less problematic spaces within existing topic bans can be a reason to remove or reduce a ban. CMD (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally, one must show they can edit constructively outside the TBAN areas. One must got give the appearance of simply outwaiting the TBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Can I clarify the exact TBAN phrasing as indef TBAN from Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey - I don't think Steverci is trying to misconstrue or even being careless on it, just for specific discussion in case a narrowed TBAN is considered as an alternative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Narrow TBAN? I'd be willing to narrow the TBAN to conflicts involving one or more of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey or factions within them. I don't know if Steverci has any interest in articles on Armenia/Azerbaijan outside of those areas, so it might be a pointless suggestion. I don't think there's sufficient activity to warrant removing the full TBAN on the truly problematic areas at this point. I'd be happy to say that Steverci can appeal in 3 months (whether the current TBAN is narrowed or not), rather than the usual 6, since that could give a decent editing basis - I haven't spotted any particular problems that warrant a long pause time between each appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be open to either the narrow TBAN or another three months. The former would allow me to clearly demonstrate the TBAN is no longer necessary. For the latter, I'd appreciate if we could define a minimal amount of required edit activity. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Deepfriedokra here. Tbans are given based on a history of problems. Tbans are lifted based on a history showing there is no longer a problem, and in this case, there isn't enough history to clearly demonstrate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Template editor

I propose that The Rambling Man (TRM) be granted the template editor user right. His raising of many issues at WP:MPE shows that he has a need for the right. TRM is a former admin, who lost his admin privileges about 4 years ago due to an ARBCOM case. It is for this reason that I feel that any granting of advanced permissions needs to be done with the consensus of the community at large. I believe that granting the user right to TRM will result in a reduction of workload at MPE and ITNC, as TRM will be able to make productive edits in those areas which he currently cannot do. I believe that he will not abuse the user right if granted it. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cheers. And if any admin is available now, there are a few issues I noted two days ago which are currently live on the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Mjroots: please, no half measures, restore the administration rights also. ——Serial ^# 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added the flag, since it does not require a vote and is clearly needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, as I feared, this doesn't mean I can address the errors on the main page as we speak. Perhaps an admin could help with that please? And Serial Number 54129, thanks!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: As much as I appreciate TRM's contributions to MP and otherwise, all main page elements are cascade-protected, so TPE is pointless. (the correct measure is in what SN said) --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't do what Serial Number 54129 suggested. So The Rambling Man will just have to run for admin again. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure how well that would go, but there'd be a support from me - if there's anyone who needs the admin tools for the volunteer work they've chosen to do (and do so thoroughly well), it's TRM. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • This is why we needed WP:Main page editor. Wouldn’t have had to put TRM through the RfA bunfight. P-K3 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• As PK3 notes, this is why Valereee and I proposed creating the WP:Main page editor group: TRM is among those who needs this userright. No objections to him receiving template editor, but it doesn't address any of the main page issues; in fact in this use case, it wouldn't help at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Agree that we now have at least one example of where WP:Main page editor makes sense. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be accurate, TRM is the probably the only editor trusted enough to have MPE as an ex-admin/crat. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hardly. There are several others, who I am not going to name because this isn't a discussion where anything can come of doing so, but who've done more work with main page content than the vast majority of admins. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  You missed my point, I still don't trust them enough to have them edit the main page (probably). In contrast, I can trust TRM because of their previous positions of trust (remember that all this is just my opinion, the community might have a different view and the point of having MPEs was one that the community denied). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes

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

---

Is there a policy regarding the UK not being necessary in location field for companies, organisations etc. and that the constituent nation i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is sufficient?

For example I changed the location on Deltic Group from:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK Edit link: [10]

Subsequently user User:IceWelder removed the UK from the location from their edit:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England Edit link: [11]

There a few other articles where this has happened: Rockstar North, Denki. Rather than get into an edit war I instigated a discussion about it and we couldn't come to an agreement on this point. I suggested it might be best to get advice/help from the Administator noticeboards. Discussion link: [12]

Conversely, the user User:Beagel has insisted that United Kingdom be added in full for the Vattenfall UK article in their edit summaries: [13] and [14]

|| location =London, England, United Kingdom

So its all a bit confusing!

I've edited quite a number of articles in the format |location = Place, Nation, UK without any issues.

Some clarification on this would be most welcome. Angryskies (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, you want advice from WT:MOS, not an administrative noticeboard, as no administrative action is required. This can be closed now. All the best! ——Serial ^# 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll post over there, thanks! Angryskies (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Angryskies  :) ——Serial ^# 11:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

TikTok vandalism

I am trying to take a wikibreak, but there is one thing I need to share and request before I do. I've set up edit filter 1071 (hist · log) to track the pages being vandalised by the malicious followers of that TikTok person. It's averaging around 2 edits per hour, with multiple vandals every time a new video is released. It will not be effective in 'disallow' mode. If you have access to private filters, as all admins do, please watch this filter. For other users, if you watch edit filter logs, please keep an eye out for this one. I've been basically semi-protecting any article being edited for a couple of weeks, and blocking many of the users involved (though the latter is probably optional). If admins and EFHs don't watch the filter then it might have to be turned into a public filter, which I'd rather not do, however feel free to decide to do that anyway because it will probably still mostly work. Have fun. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz I'm not sure why an anti-TikTok Troll edit filter should be private. SO when I look at the AbuseLog, what am I going to see? Just a visible FIlter 1071 or a TIkTok vandalism filter description? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 14:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You would see the name of the filter which is TikTok vandalism. It's a fair question about whether it's private and I've been on the fence about it while it was being actively monitored. The reasons for it being private are mainly tactical. However, it does rely on a certain level of ahem unsophistication, so I've now made it public, which anyone is again welcome to change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay so while it's public, let's just hope no TikTokers know about abuse filters. revert block ignore, report to AIV on sight without warnings. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think TikTok trolls know how to check (and read) edit filters. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OK well let's stop before they start going into the "behind the scenes" namespace and find out we are talking about this, and figure out that there's an edit filter and learn to circumvent it. That's why it was private in the first place. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Too late. They've already identified ANI, lads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.114.201 (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Page creation

Hello!

I would like to create a page for the South Korean variety show House on Wheels but, when I try to, I am redirected to the "Permission error" page with the following message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Is there a reason this page should not be created? Thanks! - Seokgjin (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Long story, not that interesting. Here, I got you started: House on Wheels. Happy editing! El_C 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it's really old. (That was before my time, and I've been here for 14 years.) I was surprised to discover that the entry I expected to find on WP:LTA is not there, and I am pretty sure that it once was, but I'm not going to plow through the edit history of all of the pages associated with the LTA archive. Horologium (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

There are threads started in May 2020 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure which need to be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds about normal, actually. If anything, it is an improvement due to a flurry of activity lately. El_C 16:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

General i-ban question

General i-ban question (not seeking a sanction on anyone, and don't want to drag anyone to AN, so keeping this a general, theoretical question).

WP:IBAN says "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to ... undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means".

If User A makes an edit, and later User B modifies the wording (but does not remove it) after the iban - in a way that doesn't set off any other alarm bells (like happening frequently, stalking, harrassing, etc.) - are other admins generally considering this "undoing" an edit? It seems to go a little against the spirit, but not the letter. These editors have a pretty extensive subject area overlap, so this will probably come up again.

If it's not OK, that gives a first mover advantage to User A. If it is OK, it gives a second mover advantage to User B. So there is no "perfect" answer. I think both people want to abide by the iban, but I want to make sure I make clear to both of them what the boundaries of it are. So I'm not using the answers I get here to sanction anyone, just explain to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think the spirit of the restriction should be that if said modification is objected to by the corresponding party, it should be seen as having undone that edit, for all intents and purposes. El_C 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

But self-reverting should be enough. I do not recommend sanctions for that. El_C 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The trick, of course, is then "how does Editor A indicate that they object"? They can't talk to Editor B. They can't follow BRD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a note to an uninvolved admin should be permitted as a go-between. But each case or possible pattern of cases, to be evaluated by its particular circumstances, of course. I just have not encountered anything like that before, so whinging it will probably be part of the process. El_C 20:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: that's kind of what I'm scared of; that I'm going to become the go-to arbiter of "particular circumstances". I'm a big fan of winging it, I may try to come up with rules for a new kind of Floquenban, and see if they'll both agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• If there is an iban in place, the second editor shouldn't have modified the first editors verbiage, as they probably do not need to be editing the same articles. The first can get an admin to ask the second to revert his modification. And is just one reason I hate ibans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: In this case (I know, I said I wouldn't get specific) both editors have already edited a very large percentage of the pages in the subject area. Avoiding articles the other has already edited isn't feasible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, rather than editing the other user's text, they should propose an edit on Talk and then if it has consensus someone else will do it - and if it doesn't, there's no risk of a revert triggering an IBAN violation. Guy (help!) 12:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• It depends on the edit entirely. If User B is correcting obvious spelling or punctuation errors as part of general improvements to the article then that shouldn't be a problem. If they have adjusted the words to alter the meaning, then that could be a serious violation and a sanction may need to be applied. If the minor spelling improvements are a single or very occasional instance, then probably best ignore it. If they are frequent or focused then it could be a deliberate attempt to game the system and annoy User A and a warning would be appropriate. Without an actual edit to look at then you'll have you use your own judgement. If unsure, and if not wanting to create drama, then send a diff of the edit(s) in a private message to an admin you trust. SilkTork (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • • One of the problems of an iban. It's like a bad divorce where the judge just tells the couple to divide it up yourselves, but don't talk to each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork: I agree about context mattering in general. It hasn't been frequent, I do not think this was a deliberate attempt to game the system; if it was, I'd have blocked. I don't plan on sanctioning anyone this time, just trying to come up with guidelines for both of them for next time. I am afraid you're right, and if it happens again someone is going to come to me to decide if it's "serious enough" to be an i-ban violation. Ugh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• My understanding has generally been that there is a bit of a first-mover advantage; if Editor A has substantively edited a page before Editor B did, then editor B needs to stop making substantive edits to the same page. IBANs can get ugly, but sometimes they are absolutely necessary (speaking as someone with respect to whom another editor has a one-way IBAN), and this is only way I can see to maintain fairness. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Stalking?

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

---

Someone is WP: stalking stalking me on Wilipedia and this should be worrisome to all. My IP address is been followed around by unknown editor(s). I leave it at that. Swiss romulus (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We need a lot more information than just this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about their edits as an IP, bt their talk page shows problems with edit warring and copying within Wikipedia w/o attribution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a boomerang might be due here this link sheds some light on the IP address he's talking about (look specifically at the section labeled "Banking") Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you aren't going to name names, provide diffs, and put a notice on their talk page, you are asking for sanction yourself. You've already wasted enough time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there, my take is that he's referring to me, as mentioned in this edit, where he also calls me an "(Israeli) Stalker". That's after I reverted a couple of his changes and warned him for edit warring. The anti-Israeli/Jewish theme also spans other edits, such as this. Apologies for the wording, but this user seems delusional. UCaetano (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Upload request for protected file

I am trying to upload a new, higher-quality version of File:Bastard‼ Heavy Metal, Dark Fantasy vol01.jpg, but I am blocked from doing so (I assume because of the page's title). What should I do? — Goszei (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As it's non-free and uploaded under fair use rules, we deliberately only use a low-resolution version of artwork such as this (as you can see in the comment in the licensing section). A higher-quality version is possibly not appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Oh, I am aware of the NFCC low-res criterion. It's just that I wanted to upload a low-resolution rescale from a scan with better lighting/colors from the Kindle version. — Goszei (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that's good - I'll leave it for someone who knows how to solve your problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Goofdawg

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

This looks a lot like a sleeper sock, but regardless, I have blocked as WP:NOTHERE because I cannot work out what the hell he thinks he's playing at. Example: [15]. Anyone who thinks they can sort this out without needing to maintain a block, is most welcome to lift it. Guy (help!) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I was actually trying to work out what the heck was going on myself when I saw your block. It was the edit on Serial Number 54129's page that caught my attention and then I saw the edit war on Paul Scholes. Has been reblocked now with TP access revoked so think the ship has sailed. Glen 12:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on the edit pattern and the specific content they were trying to add, I'm certain they were a sock of User:Riku maina, but that's not a metaphysical certainty without an IP check. – PeeJay 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, if you feel they're the same person it might be worth flagging it with {{uw-agf-sock}} tags on each of their talk pages so it's on record if they reappear. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Konli17: with his disruptive editing

This user keep changing topics according his own point of view. For example "Syria" into "Rojava", or "Turkey or "Southeastern Anatolia Region" into "Turkish Kurdistan" as if these things are even a country, not even a historical region, it's like calling Tabriz is a city in Iranian Azerbaijan instead of Iran. Ins't this disruptive? This user has ongoing disputed with different users in different pages, please check his history. Sometimes, he also adds some tricky stuff meantime his editing, which the source doesn't even talk about. Beshogur (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Tabriz article says it's in Iranian Azerbaijan. Konli17 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

East Azerbaijan is a province, administrative division, so your suggestions are not valid. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

East Azerbaijan Province is very much a province and administrative division. However, it makes its appearance in the first sentence of the Tabriz article, not the second, detracting somewhat from the validity of your argument. Konli17 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is good examples [[16]] [[17]],where he deletes large sources information. You can see what his POV is. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User Konli17 was recently blocked for edit-warring behavior. They seem to be on an aggressive POV crusader, and their contributions sound more like propaganda publishers websites/fora. See this page they created. More edit-warring examples here and here, in addition to the articles pointed out above. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI:The Block of Konli17 was quite unusual as both editors (Konli17 and Amr Ibn) reverted the same amount of times and at the end Amr Ibn didn't make any explanations at the tal page, edit warred and reported the editor at the ANI where the active editor (Konli17) at the Tell Abyad talk page was blocked for 48h for reverting 9 times, actually both reverted 8 times (without breaking the 1RR rule) but only Konli17, the active user at the talk page was blocked. I too had my issues with Amr Ibn, Amr Ibn reverted me twice more without leaving an explanation at the talk page even though he was warned not to revert by the blocking Sysop of the first editor. I adverted the blocking Sysop of it, but to no avail. The Tell Abyad page dispute is currently at the DRN (request filed by me) and is awaiting a solution. I advise the Sysops to check the available (=provided) information about the conflicts mentioned here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise chronicle: I did provide thorough answers and explanation on the Tel Abyad Talk page starting by this edit. Your unfounded claims here are no surprise to me given that you are the other user involved with Konli's POV campaign, reverting my Washington Post story from the Tel Abyad page and calling it nonsense, may be because it goes against the propaganda sites you both prefer using. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that editor Konli17 is on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing his POV. He needs to stop. The last block did not seem to do anything. Tradedia^talk 05:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Doomer1557

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

---

Hello. I think we need an administrator to help @Doomer1557: on how to properly sign his posts. As I understand it, english isn't his first language & so his posts aren't in UTC. This isn't a big emergency, but it does get confusing for others. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And as they're now signing their posts, there's nothing to be done here, though it's really fucking tempting to get a boomerang out. I'm seeing GoodDay in far too many places making an utter bloody nuisance of themselves. I suggest they devote more time to content and less time (as in, no time at all) to their pseudo-administrator oar-sticking-in shit which is not their strong point. Nick (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

David Tornheim's topic ban from glyphosate, imposed as a discretionary sanction on 28 July 2016 and amended on 23 April 2019, is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

Grove music online

I was told when I got access to Grove Music online through the Wikipedia Library that it was a requirement of using it that you had to cite references to it like this, for instance - <ref name=Grove>|title=Prophète, Le|author= Huebner, Stephen|access-date=8 July 2016, with the "ref brackets of course. of course. That added a note which said "subscription required". I used it for years, very useful, no problem, grateful for the facilty. Nothing in the footnotes ever came up in red. Suddenly yesterday and today this cite of GroveOnline has been changed somehow and the "subscription required" notice has vanished, instead a note in red has taken its place saying "access-date= requires |url=". Someone appears to have changed it somehow because of this discussion [18] at Template talk:GroveOnline, which is completely over my head, I don't have a clue what they are talking about. Now a bot run by PBS is gong though every article which was cited to GroveOnline "the old way" taking out the access date, also not replacing the "subscription required" notice, leaving an edit summary Remove access-date from GroveOnline because there is no url paramter and possibly some other changes on hundreds of article pages I maintain. My question, other than "why in the world are they doing this" is, I was told that "subscription required" notice must be included when GroveOnline is cited. has that changed? I really hate these kinds of mass changes with fussy little stuff that clog up my watchlist, at times like these I wonder why I bother to edit WP.Smeat75 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the primary reason I stopped using cite templates many years ago. I just add the citation information manually to avoid this problem. I recommend you do the same. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Smeat75, what happens if you paste the url into ProveIt? Guy (help!) 00:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot is changing them all and I'm not techy enough to intervene. Smeat75 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I could be in over my head and not know it, but from reading through the discussion I think the reasons for the change in template were sound. However, when templates are changed and those changes cause working references to become broken, we need a better response than "user error". The user did not error in making a reference that, at the time, worked. I know that other kinds of templates get changed regularly and yet they don't end up showing up at AN with the same frequency as changes in reference templates end up here. So let's keep improving ref templates but also, and this is where I back-off in hopes that people better qualified than I pick up the baton, let's improve our process around what happens when improvements to reference templates break things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, let's make very, very, very sure that the benefits which will come from changing a reference template are worth the inevitable problems the change will cause. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, 100%. There should be no shame in backing out a change that has unforeseen effects, and there should be way more discussion and testing before changing widely-used templates. Guy (help!) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a BRFA for this operation. It is being run from User:PBS-AWB which should cause a ping. Can someone block that bot until this is sorted? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bot, it's an alt account using AWB. Guy (help!) 10:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant, see WP:MEATBOT. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran WP:AWB manually the actions were not taken by a bot. See the recent discussions on Template talk:GroveOnline as to why this was necessary given the desirable reasons for changing the template. However in simple terms I broke nothing. What I did was to remove an error message. Almost all the citation templates and their wrapper templates will give an error message if someone adds an "access-date" parameter to a citation that does not have a url link. The whole point of access-date[s] is to inform a reader when a web page was accessed as a warning that the current content of the page may have changed sine it was cited. There is no point in adding an "access-date" parameter to a citation that has no url. Recent changes to the template means that all the instances of {{GroveOnline}} which had an "access-date" parameter were now displaying an error message:

{{GroveOnline|title=Traviata, La||access-date=3 July 2020}}

produces:

Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). "Traviata, La". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

So for example Revision as of 00:14, 22 September 2018 by user:Smeat75 added the citation:

{{GroveOnline|title=Traviata, La|author= Parker, Roger|access-date=21 September 2018}}

The AWB script (Revision as of 17:34, 2 July 2020) changed it to

 {{GroveOnline |last=Parker |first=Roger |title=Traviata, La}}

The reason for also changing the "author" parameter to "first" and "last" is because it is standard to split name (rather than the kludge using "Parker, Roger" as a string in the parameter "author") and allows the long citation be be cited in the standard short format using the {{harv}} templates. In fact across the 660 articles there was a mixture of "first-names second-name" and "second-name, first-names" sometimes in the same citation. The reason for placing the names first and the title after them is it makes finding and or (in a reference list) alphabetically sorting on author easier. This is also the order in which the template displays the parameters (WYSIWYG).

Now to address the subscription required. If there is no link to the online subscription service then no subscription is required—instead, if one is rich, one can purchase the book (published 2001) or use a library. On the template talk page (see above) there is a discussion about whether, if there is a url parameter, to rely on the standard citation templates' red padlock (which is also used at the Grove web site), or continue with a subscription postscript. Opinions on the talk page differ, however if no consensus to remove the postscript, for those templates that have an online link, it can be reinstated.

The primary reason for making the change is that there are currently 3 different and overlapping templates {{GroveOnline}} {{Cite Grove}} and {{Cite NewGrove2001}}. The intention is to merge all three (starting with {{GroveOnline}} {{Cite Grove}}). The first step of which was to alter the oldest one, {{GroveOnline}}, so that the script was converted from calling {{cite encyclopedia}} directly into using the Lua template wrapper. This move most of the script complications down into the standard Lua code. For example the GroveOnline script prior to the change had 41 line now it has 11 line and far more functionality. -- PBS (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note from the Wikipedia Library team that we don't require any particular citation formatting if you get access to content through the library. We previously had some text on the signup pages which unfortunately implied a requirement but was just our best attempt to provide an example of a full citation per the then best practices. See a previous discussion on this in the VPP archive. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further to what PBS says above, yes you could go out and buy Grove Music (published in 2001) or use a library but Grove Music online is part of Oxford Music Online and when you have access to that you also have access to " to search The Oxford Dictionary of Music and The Oxford Companion to Music". Further the online version is constantly updated, it's not the same as the book published in 2001, just last month for instance "We are pleased to have added 3 new articles, 12 new images, 67 revised entries, and refreshed data for 4 entries for this site update." So how am I supposed to cite it now? It worked perfectly well before these (completely unnecessary imo) changes messed it up.Smeat75 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, before I went through the pages that did not have URL, I went through those that that did adding a full citation including the date and checking the link to the Grove online site. Those examples can be found in:

• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a url parameter‎

I also added some to six other templates using "doi" and "id" see:

• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a doi parameter‎
• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with an id parameter‎

So you can use those articles to see how to link the article to the website and how to date them correctly. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just do it manually from now on as Viriditas suggests and not use cite templates. I thought you were supposed to as a condition of having access through the Wikipedia library. I don't have an effing clue what a "template with a doi parameter" or an "id paraamter" is and could not care less, I edit articles on MUSIC because readers come hear to learn about MUSIC not all that technical bollocks.Smeat75 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: as I indicated upthread I read the original discussion and understood the reasoning for this change. The change made sense. But you've either not seen, don't understand, or disagree with the point I was also trying to make. So let me try making it again . Your technical change was good. But a reference that was added, even one added incorrectly, that didn't produce an error when added and now produces an error is a broken reference and it was broken by the change in template. The response that seems to be common in these situations is to blame the editors who didn't do the technical side correctly in the first place. I think that attitude means that reference template changes end up at AN far too often. And for that I firmly believe something can be done but stop short of saying what the right solution out of respect for people who understand this better than I do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sympathy with your argument, for example changing "cite ..." templates to match {{citation}} template in regards to the way that the ref parameter works has left a long tail of problems. However (MRDA) in this case I assessed the problem of the issues that would appear and knew that I could fix them in a few days (2,3?). I fixed the instances I knew would be broken after the change (unnamed parameters) before the change, but others which produced red warning I did not fix prior to the change, because potentially other editors not seeing the problem (red warnings) would probably have revert some of the changes. Once the change was made then making a revert of a revert would be needed. This would have made work for people that was fruitless and would I think have caused more resentment. Not running the AWB script would also have caused resentment with editors who had not expressed an opinion in the change forced to clean up someone else's red mess. -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hang on — so, to me as a casual passer-by, the above and linked discussion seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Wouldn't the fix for the underlying issue be to allow access-date without URL for online reference works like this that could reasonably be cited without a URL (Grove Online, OED, etc.)? The access-date information seems logically applicable to citations such as these, since the sources' text can change and then no longer support the content sourced to it. It sounds like the reason for excluding it is lack of support in a dependency of the template, which doesn't sound like something intractable to remedy (imagining logic to the effect of, "if the title matches 'Grove', then don't treat 'access-date without url' as an error"). Just my 2¢… —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

|access-date= requires the use of |url= in CS1/2 templates, which is a long-standing requirement for template input (see category). {{Cite Grove}} is a derivative of {{cite encyclopedia}} and thus has the same requirement. However, before this change, the template provided an automatic link to the DOI in the URL field rather than in the expected field, which is |doi=. This allowed for the use of template with the access date provided to take no URL. Now that the template does not have this automatic fallback, the template is falling back to the default behavior in the core template, which is to warn the user that the access date has no URL. And so we're here today where PBS has since stated that he was aware of what would happen and was going to fix it after the change in Cite Grove, with some reasonable rationale. It is not the case that you cannot have an accessdate, it is the case that if you have one, you must have selected some particular URL to go with that accessdate. (Permanent identifiers do not need access dates because they are anticipated/expected to be usable for a reasonably long time to find the work so-identified.) --Izno (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I still tend to think it would be better to (at least temporarily) change the tradition at CS1 to carve out an exception to that requirement for references to this sort of work, until the offending references are re-checked against the source and updated with URL and accessdate, since just removing the accessdate would confusingly imply it's a static source à la print… I guess it's perhaps overly optimistic to think that process would get taken care of quickly, though, since it would essentially just be yet another maintenance backlog. Oh well, I guess there are substantially more important fish to fry. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

{{cite Grove}} has 800 transclusions. Module:Citation/CS1 has 4 million and change. Which do you think is more likely to be changed when the change in one is a routine update and one is a rather significant departure from previous behavior? :) --Izno (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Mm, fair enough. :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 06:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As the author of the alternate Grove templates that (eventually) prompted the merger discussion referenced above, my plan was to make a parallel implementation that was clean, consistent, and without all the quirky behaviour of the original Grove templates (they were written by different people, at different times, using different implementation strategies, for different driving purposes, and implement various non-standard behaviour and logic that only work in very limited situations); and then to manually and article-by-article and cite-by-cite go through and replace the old templates with the new. Beyond the technical aspects, this makes sure any changes in output after the changeover have been assessed, individually (because usages are individual), by a human being; and that the editors that care about a particular article have a real chance to object, point out problems, and, possibly, to be persuaded that the changes are acceptable. Once the old templates have zero mainspace transclusions they can be MfD'ed and possibly AWB-replaced.

Changing the implementation of the existing templates in breaking ways and then AWB-modifying usages to what you think they should be is not taking into account the fact that people who are here to write articles care about their citations, and has put considerable effort into making them just the way they want them. It is prioritising factors such as the edit history artefacts in Template:-space, automatability of mass changes (which, yes, requires BRFA, regardless of whether you implement your (meat)bot using pywikibot or AWB, for precisely this reason; check the terms of use for AWB), and clean metadata. It is making this prioritisation over all the editors that have worked hard on actual articles and their citations, and who spend a lot of time and effort maintaining those articles. It is making that prioritisation at the expense of the actual output in the affected articles. And it is doing so based on one editor's opinion, made outside of the local article (where all such issues should be discussed, unless a community-wide consensus overrules it), and in de facto contravention of CITEVAR.

Editors proclaiming they'll stop using citation templates sounds, at first blush, like childishness or sour grapes. It's not. It is fast becoming the only reasonable approach to a culture that permits running roughshod over local consensus just because the change in question was one that was automatable and had some desirable technical effects. That permits people running a bot to impose their idea of the one true Wikipedia citation style, despite broad consensus that Wikipedia has no one true citation style. Where adding {{bots|deny=botname}} to an article to prevent changes the local editors see as undesirable is mass bot reverted because, they argue, {{bots|deny=botname}} has zero valid use cases (just try to grasp the level of Kafkaesquity of this from a content editor's point of view: this behaviour by a human on one article would be sanctioned as edit warring, but when performed by a bot over hundreds or thousands of articles it's somehow ok?). Using citation templates creates the technical possibility to make mass changes, but being possible is not the same as being desirable or permitted. And, in fact, in many of these cases, is explicitly forbidden and explicitly requires approval to make sure there is consensus for the changes before they are made. Just because the technical effects are good and desirable in themselves does not ipso facto mean they are more important then their effects on articles and the editors there.

These issues keep appearing at AN/ANI because AN/ANI is failing to actually enforce existing policy. Such mass changes are disruptive if not handled properly, and a lot of these changes violate CITEVAR, completely irrespective of whether the changes also happen to have some desirable technical effects. Anyone that wants to mass change citations on the project should head on over to the Village Pump and make the case for why their One True Citation Style should be mandatory across English Wikipedia, and anyone ending here at AN/ANI after mass changes without a community-wide RfC to back up their specific changes over local consensus should be treated like any other user engaging in mass disruptive behaviour. There is absolutely no reason why these issues should have to end up at ArbCom (we've had citation styles once, and infoboxes twice) if ANI would actually enforce existing policy (WP:BOTPOL, WP:AWBRULES, WP:CITEVAR). Give editors working in content space and who actually care about their citations a break, will you? Editors who care is a good thing: we want to attract more of them, not drive away the dwindling number we have left.

PS. Just to give some context of where I'm coming from… I'm a techie that will routinely spend hours automating a task that can be done manually in mere minutes more. I'm passionate about semantic and correct metadata, and have as a personal bugaboo that inaccurate or incorrect metadata is actively harmful. I'll happily approach any problem on-wiki through technical means if technical means are feasible. I am the kind of person that gets disproportionately grateful for gnomes doing stuff like this on "my" articles. I am in no way shape or form opposed to technical solutions—in fact, I advocate for them—when technical solutions are actually feasible. In the cases that have ended up here lately, they haven't been, but have been rammed through regardless.

PPS. Note that while the above certainly contains criticism of the approach PBS took here—and, in fairness I have to admit I am a little personally miffed they decided to overwrite the new templates I'd made—it's not really criticism of PBS. They were clearly acting in good faith and doing their best to be transparent, open, and inclusive, and to make these changes responsibly. What I'm saying is that in this case they walked into a trap, of sorts, created by our inability to actually enforce existing policy: I am here criticising a systemic issue, not a single editor doing their best within that system. --Xover (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Eloquent post User:Xover, thank you. Smeat75 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes at the WikiEd Foundation

The WikiEd foundation formally announced a reduction in scope in how WikiEd will be supporting students for the coming year at the education noticeboard. As student editors can impact a number of administrative areas and functions I thought that announcement might be of interest to some editors who frequent this board and not that one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone moved a Userpage

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

---

Can any admin see this. This user has been moved by some autoconfirmed user with some 600+ edits. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Aaqib bhai, Dr-Taher is a global renamer. Presumably the user whose page was moved had requested a username change. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what the edit summary says, "Dr-Taher moved page User:Nasreen Zahid to User:Fatima Al Khalidi: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Nasreen Zahid" to "Fatima Al Khalidi")" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

3nk1namshub

• 3nk1namshub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In attempting to understand 3nk1namshub's frankly bizarre behaviour I found this [19], which may perhaps identify a root cause. Regardless, having reviewed their edits I am pretty confident that Wikipedia is going to be bad for their mental health (and the evidence suggests that they are also going to be bad for ours) so I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. If anyone feels that they can fix this through kindness and patience then they are more than welcome to unblock. Guy (help!) 09:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I am fine with having them address problems through the venue of an unblock appeal, if they're serious about continuing to contribute. This level of vitriol falls well bellow expectations and require significant correction. El_C 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse, recommend standard offer. Six months working on other wikis will allow them to demonstrate that they can beahve collegially.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 2020-07-03T11:20:55 (UTC)
• Standard offer, 6 months constructivity other projects. (Last I looked, they had an active unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Switch to unblock when GW's mentorship is in place/ FWIW, I identify as autistic, and that should not be a factor. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Or Jasper's. Or both. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have a great deal of sympathy with this user's cause. The Signpost page which they are talking about is, frankly, disgusting, and I can clearly understand why a new user would feel that it absolutely should be deleted post-haste, not being familiar with the consensus process. However, we do, of course, have a consensus process, and neither AN nor the user's talk page or user page is the place to question an existing consensus. I think it ought to be questioned why the discussion at WT:SIGNPOST was closed so soon, even with the incivility issues, but I do not object to the block itself; it is clear that they have been extremely uncivil, and whilst I might quibble about the consistency with which a block might or might not be applied for those same actions, I think the decision that has been taken here is a good one. That being said, I think an unblock should be considered after a short period of time (shorter than the standard offer, certainly); I don't think the editor is here with an intent to be disruptive. Perhaps I'm taking WP:AGF to an extreme here, but I think they are genuinely trying to make the encyclopedia better, albeit the case that they clearly need to consider the way that they do that, and the way that they interact with other people. If they were to continue being uncivil after an unblock, then an indef without standard appeals would be warranted. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  And I would agree with Naypta were it not for the s aforementioned edit summary. Taken as a whole, 3nk1namshub needs to calm down. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: That's understandable, for sure. I think it's worthy of note that the user did later try to post an apology for that after their 24 hour block for it expired, but reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that is sufficient to make up for it. I wonder what RandomCanadian thinks is appropriate, seeing as they were the target of the abuse in this case - please don't feel you have to reply to this ping if you'd rather not, though, as I appreciate this is a difficult subject. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing difficult at all. Taken as a whole, 3nk1namshub is not ready for a collaborative environment. Perhaps six months from now, they will be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: I do, however, wonder if they deserve this kind of gravedancing? I suggest not; it's childish, unhelpful mockery. In my book, even if it were true, anyone who thinks it necessary to say that on the user's own page is demonstrating extremely poor judgement. ——Serial ^# 12:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have removed the offending comment. And will warn the user about this sort of thing being totally unacceptable. El_C 12:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, El_C, no need to make this worse than it has to be. ——Serial ^# 13:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, absolutely. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. El_C 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hell, I'd have suggested blocking the one who posted that comment since it's clearly not their first disruptive salvo against the indeffed user, and considering that they just "lol"ed off the first warning, there's no indication that they plan to stop.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hell, and that’s why you’re not an admin, lol. And where’s the indication I plan to continue? I’ll answer for you; nowhere. End of discussion. Good day. – ².O.^Boxing 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I concur with WaltCip. And Squared.Circle.Boxing would do well to consider that ANIs often conclude with sanctions against multiple parties, not just the one named in the heading. "Mooning the jury" here with personalized hostility as you did is a strong indication that WaltCip's assessment is correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I think this could have been discussed prior to a block, but that notwithstanding I'm inclined to agree with Naypta. Either we can try a 2-week time-limited block and see their behaviour on return; alternatively, stick with the indef but use 2 weeks or a month as the functional base time for unblock discussions instead of 6 months. I'm tempted to go for the latter as the unblocking admin will probably need to have a fairly lengthy discussion to work out whether the editor has had a chance to consider, as well as setting up any editing restrictions appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, preference for the latter. El_C 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Post mentorship offers, so as long as a 3rd party unblocker (ie not a mentor) was happy with any unblock conditions, a mentor was in place and accepted by the user, and sufficient understanding demonstrated, I'd be happy to back an unblock at any point. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse the user in question has made a grand total of 10 mainspace edits. The disruption clearly outweighs any contributions made to the encyclopedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Why is an edit summary from a week ago being brought up as reasoning for a block now? I was on the receiving end of some of 3nk1namshub's less-than-charitable comments surrounding the Autism issue, and I've had their user page watchlisted since, which is why I'm showing up here now. They were briefly blocked for their behavior in that dispute, and shortly after they realized that they had reacted inappropriately due to the very personal nature of the issue, and apologized. It seems like double jeopardy for their behavior then to be used against them now. Their behavior in this latest dispute was disruptive, yes, but they were also trying to raise what I believe to be legitimate concerns. An indef block seems excessive, and their recent unblock request suggests to me they've cooled down. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, only that it's an indication (backed by subsequent statements) that the user identifies as autistic, which explains the obsessive behaviour but also speaks to the likelihood of that changing. That's why El C and I were distinctly unimpressed with Squared.Circle.Boxing's bullshit noted above.

  This is not about attacks that have long since blown over, but about the very odd behaviour around the old Signpost article.

  This is also not a cool down block. It's a discussion about whether someone has the reserves of kindness and patience to help 3nk1namshub to have a Wikipedia experience that will not cause them serious distress, which is what's happened to date. Guy (help!) 17:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  We are not medical professionals caring for 3nk1namshub, and so I do not believe it is appropriate for us to try to decide what is best for them based on their autism nor predict their behavior based on it. It should not factor in to any sanctions; they can make the decision for themself around whether they wish and are able to contribute here within our policies and guidelines. If what you are looking for is some sort of mentor for them, I am happy to volunteer if they are open to that solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, if you're willing to volunteer for that, I would support taking any action you see fit. El_C 18:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think the best thing to do right now is wait to hear from 3nk1namshub. If they're willing to move forward with a mentor, that might be the best option. I see Jasper Deng has also offered to mentor, so I'd leave it up to 3nk1namshub to decide who they'd prefer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unpopular opinion, but overturn per @GorillaWarfare:. I am willing to take on the role of mentoring them as they appear to at least be willing to communicate about these issues. The user has acknowledged multiple times that their behavior was inappropriate and I've suggested them multiple times to edit content, though I don't have much in the way of specific articles they could work on. I think a conditional unblock, including a topic ban from the Signpost piece (bad as it was) and the condition of mentorship, would be a much better alternative to the standard offer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, you may wish to review my unblock decline. El_C 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: Honestly, I don't think it addresses what GorillaWarfare said. What's important is that they know they were (not "are") disruptive and are willing to work to change their behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, based on their past behaviour, I still think they need more time away from the project, for a while, at least. El_C 17:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: I even suggested that too, but I would rather not have it done by a block, especially as they have disengaged from the topic in question at my suggestion (there is little to prevent). But now that we're here, I think it's better to offer a conditional unblock along these lines (and GW's) rather than merely decline their request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, in time. I still think we need more time. El_C 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: How about we be specific, and not vague. Why make it involuntary when they themselves have offered to take a wikibreak? Look, I agree they need time away from the project. But they already offered to do so voluntarily, and they already have made an earnest promise to change their behavior. I don't really see what purpose this block serves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Now the temptation to act inappropriately (even if from admirable reasons) is removed. El_C 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: I don't think it was there anymore in the first place, to be quite honest. Read the conversation I had with them before the block in full detail. I highly suggest the WP:ROPE approach and mentorship in lieu of the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, they are welcome to make another unblock appeal. Alternatively, if there is consensus to unblock in this report, I will likewise not stand in its way. El_C 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Also, I strongly endorse what GW said: never tell anyone that their actions are due to a disorder, even when they say they have said disorder. It's not our place to make such assumptions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    Jasper Deng, I didn't, they did. Guy (help!) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• As the previous blocking administrator, who believed that there was a good chance that 3nk1namshub would reconsider, I was vindicated by their response. Realistically, I also believed that this might recur, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I continue to hold that belief. While we have a policy of not issuing cool-down blocks, in the case of this particular user, and in view of their self-description, that might be the best and kindest approach. I remain opposed to an indef, on the basis of my interactions with the user. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • • I still think the user has been too disruptive to immediately unblock. El_C 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting an immediate unblock. I'm opposed to an indefinite NOTHERE block. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Acroterion, understood. El_C 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think I've ever seen a new user get involved in so many nasty disputes so quickly. If that really is the main reason they're here then the NOTHERE block is appropriate. Not opposed to an unblock but I'd like to see a commitment to doing something else, e.g. writing content or doing some useful maintenance task. Hut 8.5 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Hut 8.5: I think a few explicit content suggestions would indeed be good, and a good way to offer them mentorship. I would rather they stay out of maintenance tasks, if by that you mean anti-vandalism or spam work, if only because I think it would be best if they take their interactions with others slowly and carefully.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think a large part of the problem is that most of their interactions with others have been on emotionally charged topics they obviously care deeply about, e.g. trans issues and autism. I suspect they might do better if they avoided those areas. I don't necessarily mean dealing with vandalism or spam, any sort of gnoming work might work. Hut 8.5 17:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• That Signpost article is disgusting. It should have the "keep but blank" consensus overturned and be rev-delled. Everyone who was involved in the publication of it should be ashamed. Everyone who defended it (and we know who they are) should likewise be ashamed. If I were on the target side of that horrible thing, I would be filled with rage and anguish, too. So I get it. They're disruptive, but honestly no one seems to give a shit and maybe this disruption is necessary to bring eyeballs back to it. I think with Jasper and GW's mentorship, this user may become productive, so I sit with them.--Jorm (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock per Jasper and GW. I think that a fair amount of the editor's behavior can be explained as a response to a whole lot of biting, some unintentional and some seemingly intentional. They have expressed contrition, and appear to have already stood down at the time that the block was put in place. This feels a bit like a trans-rights analogue to WP:Don't overlook legal threats. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock. Wholeheartedly agree with GW, Jasper, Jorm, et al. The Signpost piece is abhorrent. It's dehumanizing, and the fact that it was allowed to be kept and not deleted disgusts me. I'm absolutely going to call people out here: SMcCandlish, Barbara (WVS), you should be ashamed, as should everyone else who thinks this shit is funny. For as long as I've been here, Wikipedia has been a heteronormative, cisnormative place, and if we want to build the best free knowledge resource that the world has ever seen, we have to be welcoming to (almost) everybody. As for the block, I agree that I'd like to see 3nk1namshub unblocked at some point, so long as they are involved in some content-related work. They're clearly passionate about a number of subjects, so they could definitely be a net positive, but mentorship would probably be a good idea. – Frood (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Frood, it's incredibly disruptive to shame-ping two users (one of whom hasn't edited this year) over an old issue. Please don't do that again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Especially when it's completely off-topic, having nothing to do with the blocked user nor their autism-related editing and battlegrounding focus. [And the accusation is incorrect anyway. We've been over this 1,000 times already: just because something involves pronouns doesn't make it trans-related; the piece was about egotistical, religious/mystical, and commercial aggrandizement. To the extent the point it makes could be applied to trans/NB matters at all, it is actually valid: While WP should use he/she/they gender-referential writing practices to suit subjects' source-attested gender identity, WP absolutely should not implement pseudo-pronouns like zir or shim just because a subject does so. It's fine to mention in the article that the subject uses one, as we do at Genesis P-Orridge, but otherwise write around the matter with a neutral singular-they, by repeating the surname, etc.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block but unblock with mentoring - The editor had been disruptive and the block prevented further disruption, so good block. If there are editors willing to mentor, then yes, let's give that a shot, as always. BTW, may I remind everyone that, while I of all editors certainly understand having strong feelings about the deletion of a page :-), there were many editors who !voted to keep that page, some of whom are, of course, themselves transgender or non-binary, and so suggesting that everyone who defended that page is transphobic is probably off the mark. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I think it important to remember the subject of this thread is whether 3nk1namshub can edit constructively. There have been issues part from objecting to that Signpost piece. Others have objected without becoming disruptive.3nk1namshub's resounding question, What is Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Foundation) doing to challenge the environment they created, that clearly encourages and condones transphobia? needs to be asked and answered elsewhere, perhaps WP:VPP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, if at all: we are not actually bad at getting rid of transphobes. Guy (help!) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Commenting because I like to provide more sympathetic viewpoints for new editors at times, though I'm not sure how well I can do that here. In other cases of new editor 'mistakes', where new editors have apologised for their actions and promise to improve, the community often insists on a ban or a block regardless, and that's in first time cases. In this case, unusually, it seems like arguments are already tending towards more sympathetic, yet the conduct here is more egregious than typical cases, and this isn't the first major issue, it's not even the second - they've promised to stop before. They told an editor to fuck off for closing an edit request, and proceeded to call them a scumbag. That was dealt with and given a 24h block. About 2 weeks later, the trend continues. Even some of their 'calmer' discussions, eg the deadnaming one, started off well and quickly descended beyond appropriate conduct. Multiple editors, across multiple noticeboards and talk pages, have expressed concerns, with Levivich labelling them a RGW SPA. Earlier today they changed their user page (see Special:Permalink/965765536), note the edit summary. Combined with their other comments, I've seen this many times especially in younger editors on various forums, ime it's conflated emotions and there has not been the proper time to reflect, and no benefit ever came, to any party, from undoing the block soon after.

That said, although much of what they wrote was a sore to read, the discussion at ANI § Why is this ok? was thought-provoking, and I sympathise with their initial comments. The final remark sticks out at me, Y'all claim you want a more diverse editing population, but do nothing to foster an environment that allows that. If this were anyone else, I wouldn't even have to comment because everyone else would be moving to keep the block and this discussion would already be closed. Nevertheless, I believe that creating an echo-chamber isn't beneficial to the encyclopaedia. After this mess of conduct, and the recency of it, I firmly oppose an unblock currently. But, after things have calmed down (i.e. in a month's time), should they still wish to contribute to improving Wikipedia, especially in the areas we've gotten wrong across articles, I strongly believe it would be beneficial for the encyclopaedia to grant the request. I also agree mentorship would be a great help, and I do truly hope that they make said unblock request in a month's time; I'd love to have them contributing to fixing the very real problems they describe. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support unblock, essentially per User:GorillaWarfare's comments. This is someone who didn't handle their anger well, but the indef block is an overreaction (especially as it was partly for something they'd already been blocked for previously). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, for the avoidance of doubt, that played no part in the block decision, other than as a pattern of weirdness. I think Levivich has the right of it here. Guy (help!) 22:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: OK, thanks for the explanation. I still strongly oppose the indef block and support the unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, unblock with friendly support is 100% the result I hoped for here. Guy (help!) 10:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose indef I'm ambivalent on the current block, but either way I believe the indef is inappropriate and do not agree the NOTHERE rationale is correct. While the linked diff is obviously disruptive, it was in the context of an edit request so I don't see how that substantiates a NOTHERE block. Their approach may be abrasive and inappropriate, but that does not mean they are not trying to help build an encyclopedia. As for overturning the block, I lean towards unblocking per GorillaWarfare, but given the WP:NPA issue understand why a definite block of a month or two may be reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I have struckthrough my decline for their unblock appeal, per my discussion with GorillaWarfare above. The request should be considered re-opened. El_C 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Block was warranted. Indef was too much. Unblock with mentorship was a good move. I'm late to this, but as an admin who was responding yesterday and trying to de-escalate the situation, I wanted to chime in. I think Levivich matches my view best. 3nk1namshub was being disruptive and resumed doing so less than 2 hours after the ANI was closed for the second time. For that, a block was warranted. The user's (justified) anger was overriding others' attempts to help. As someone the Signpost's bullshit directly relates to, I understand the anger over it.  Despite "no cool down blocks", I'd say one was warranted here (IAR) given the info 3nk1namshub provided. All said, the unblock seems reasonable and I hope mentorship is successful. 3nk1namshub, FWIW, i'm happy to offer my view and input as a non-binary admin should you wish to hear it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  EvergreenFir, What you just said :-) Guy (help!) 10:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

Given the consent of Guy and El C and the general thrust of this thread I didn't see a reason to leave this user blocked any longer and so I have unblocked them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with that, Barkeep49. El_C 23:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Reading this back, certain sections seem confrontational. I apologize for them, as that is certainly not my intent. I'm really not good with words. I hope you'll understand, thank you. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone here for speaking their mind. Whether or not they voted to endorse or oppose, I think everyone here made some very good points that I will certainly be taking into account in the future. I would be more than happy to have GorillaWarfare as a mentor. I haven't interacted much with her, but it's clear she's incredibly kind, and has the patience of a saint, in addition to being understanding of queer issues. However, I haven't yet decided on whether I will be returning to Wikipedia. If I were to make that decision now, it would be a very clear no. However, as I intend to take a break from Wikipedia anyway, I don't want to make any hasty decisions.

Before I go, I'd just like to say that I feel this thread has proven my point exactly. While a vast majority of the points brought up are perfectly fine, some of them have speculated on completely unrelated issues about me. My mental health should not come into play here. My autism should not come into play here. One user claimed I was "looking for an argument" when politely asking an editor about the hategroup dogwhistle on their user page. If polite questions about TERFy dogwhistles are looking for an argument, why are TERFy dogwhistles not?

Additionally, throughout this whole thing I've had several editors acknowledge the issues of transphobia on Wikipedia, and claim that my frustration is justified. Several people have asked me to stay to try and make Wikipedia more welcoming for queer people, but I'm really not sure that's do-able. You cannot ask trans people to help fix your mistakes, refuse to listen to us, and then give a topic ban for trans issues when we get angry. It really seems like what's wanted is trans people who accept the status quo, not trans people who want to fix your mistakes since you will not. And before anyone says anything, yes, I am aware I am not topic banned; it's been mentioned at least once though.

Wikipedia isn't just passively hostile to trans people though, it's actively hostile. Even ignoring that article of The Signpost, user pages are seemingly free to contain whatever, including TERF dogwhistles, and "beliefs" about the English language that are demonstrably false and intended to dehumanize trans people. I will be more than happy to provide examples if asked. I've also seen someone in this thread tokenize trans people's opinions on the article from The Signpost (although this may just be a misinterpretation on my end). @JzG: I apologize for pinging you directly, but I would be more than willing to show you why Wikipedia isn't actually that good at ridding itself of transphobes.

I'm aware this is not helping the case about me being an RGW SPA, but I think it's important to at least try and make you all aware of the issues here. I don't like to assume identities, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that most of the people in this thread are cis (I'm aware not all of the people are, however), and I'll hope you'll be at least a bit open-minded to what I'm saying here. Being trans brings a completely different life experience, and cis people are (in my experience) unable to accurately put themselves in our places without a trans person trying to explain detail what things are like. There's a reason that the vast majority of trans people off Wikipedia do not like this place or its editors, and whether or not I return, I'd appreciate it if everyone here attempted to ask themselves why that is (hint: the answer is not because we're sensitive snowflakes who want to censor history).

I'm going to monitor this thread, but I won't be responding unless someone asks for clarification on something. If you would like to chat about the things I've said here, my Freenode nick is enki_nam_shub (I've talked to several editors on Freenode under a different nick in the past. However, due to some opsec issues, this is a long overdue nick change, and I will be happy to prove that both nicks are me if you have any concerns).

Again, thank you all, especially the people who supported the block. You've all given me a great deal to think about and made fantastic points. Whether or not I return, this has been a learning experience. It certainly could've happened in a much better way, but in a strange way, I think this has been good for me. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, 3nk1namshub. Good luck with your future edits. El_C 03:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, one last thing: I would really, really appreciate it if editors did not use transphobic slurs in this thread, thanks. Throwing transphobic slurs around does not help the case that you're actually not a transphobe. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@3nk1namshub: Note that I have also offered mentorship, which can be in addition to GW. I do recommend you accept GW's offer though, she's one of the best you can ask for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thank you Guy (help!) 10:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@3nk1namshub: Thank you for coming here and sharing your thoughts, which I think we would all do well to read and reflect upon. I understand entirely that you do not wish to immediately return to editing, and are unsure if you ever will. If you do decide to, and I hope you will, please feel free to either leave a message on my talk page or contact me via email (Special:EmailUser/GorillaWarfare or gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com) and I will happily work with you to try to ensure your next foray into editing is a pleasant one. It seems we may have some overlap in our editing interests, so perhaps we could collaborate on an article sometime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wanted to add a comment based on Nosebagbear's modified indef above. For a while I've advocated for what I've called "indef-lite". The basic idea is the indef has no minimum time until appeal and the appeal doesn't need to be anything too big. In short the blocks are to protect wikipedia, not punish. Rather than blocking for say 1-week we block for a relatively minor thing, we simply block until the editor acknowledges the issue and agrees not to do it again. At that point the block is lifted. It doesn't let them just "wait it out" and it does force them to at least articulate what others were upset about. However, if they come to that realization in just 12 hours, well that would mean the rest of the block, be it 1 week, 1 month or the typical 6 months until an indef appeal is punitive. Having read the original ANI and this follow up regarding the editor in question I think the decision to lift the indef with conditions was the right one. What the community actually implemented was similar to my "indef-lite" idea. I'm mentioning this here to put the idea in people's minds in a case where I'm totally uninvolved. Springee (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think there should be a minimum time before 'acknowledgement' at least. One doesn't often come to a realisation and change within 12 hours of being blocked, even if one thinks they 'get it' imo. It just takes time. But my thought is perhaps counter-productive, kinda like what was said at the Kiev-Kyiv RM yesterday: if you set a minimum duration of block/moratorium/whatever, the date that duration ends will probably be the date of appeal. Slightly different for blocks because if it's a reasonable duration (a few weeks, a month) it's likely it won't be appealed unless the person really wants to come back, and hopefully (probably?) it's for good reasons this time. And the standard offer of 6 months, while I'm aware it's only a guide, is quite long imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: that's something we do already: with indefinite blocks, which seems to work fine. ——Serial ^# 11:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In the past I've received pushback when I've suggested similar blocks which is why I've mentioned it here. I think a different lable vs "indef" might be helpful when looking at block logs. I think most people see "indef" and assume the crime was a big one. As I proposed this I would suggest it's not meant to be a "last resort" sort of block and I wouldn't want it read that way. Anyway, even if it's not formalized it's good to know it was happening more in practice than I was aware. Springee (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: - possibly, we obviously have "soft blocks" which are usually for non-bad incidents, but also include things like legal threats, but are purely contingent on the blockee's actions. I wouldn't be against a more standard term on block logs for where it's specifically felt that waiting for the SO is genuinely felt as not needed (rather than just an occasional option). Further discussion probably warrants at least its own sub-section, if not a distinct discussion on ideas or with interested individuals. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Edward Colston

I not so concerned, but I have a feeling that there maybe an editor on username and logging out to edit from an IP. I have a feeling there is something a little fishy, could be just me, thought I post here just in case. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's on me. I've restored the indefinite semi that got interrupted with my previous full protection. El_C 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, sometimes I think some people have some kind of political agenda on these types of articles. Thanks again. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Anytime, Govvy. El_C 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, surely not. Guy (help!) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. Clear block evasion by User:Orchomen, who edits from the same area and was most recently blocked as Blackumbra. Sro23 (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Image competition?

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

I noticed this user adding very large amounts of images to articles, almost all of which were poorly formatted without captions, at high rates of speed, with an edit summary including "#wpwp #wpwpng". After asking the user (see this thread on their talk page) and some asking around, I found out that this is apparently related to a contest at meta: m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos. There are apparently cash prizes for quantity of images added, with very poorly spelled out rules. This seems like a pretty terrible idea just begging for low-quality dumping of images into articles without understanding how to do so correctly or appropriately. I don't know how widespread the problem is or if it's worth setting up an edit filter, but others may want to be aware of this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of them doing it. Thought it might have been a sock-farm at first, but I guess a competition for doing it sounds more likely. Érico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another one. There have been others on my watchlist in the last 48hrs or so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a pain, you'd think they would at least add a guideline on the quality of images? Completely random images and unnecessary ones are being added to bring up the count. I personally agree with Deacon Vorbis, it is quite a terrible idea. I suggest perhaps suspending the competition until some proper rules about the quality and type of images that can be added are created, as well as saying that poor and low-quality images will not be counted into the competition. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed this on my watched pages, especially as non-free images are being uploaded. Here is another uploader: Eluwa Stephanie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both the edit filter and suspending the competition sound like good ideas. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Add edit filter blocking those hashtags sounds like it could be urgency. In the meantime, how does one get a meta-organised competition to stop? It's outrageous that there was no notice, or warning, here. Pinging User:T Cells who, while inactive here, seems to have had a role in its organisation. ——Serial ^# 14:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And there you have it. Turns out that T-cells is none other than User:Wikicology, whom some might remember as frequenting these parts. Specifically, this board. ——Serial ^# 14:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:, I've put a notice on Meta, they seem to be quite active there. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Berrely, I meant to but got distracted by the WC saga...again  :) ——Serial ^# 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought Wikicology was already site banned? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. This edit summary has been showing up at RC all day. I do not know if the most recent site banner has indirectly led this group of accounts to upload images. I checked a few of those, and they could appear to be of less than ideal quality. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock-farm? Lol, no. It's a annual campaign that occurs on all wikis. First, the images that I add to the articles are adequate. Second, as sysop at Commons I know the copyright rules very well. Anyway, If adding appropriate photos to articles is a problem here, it certainly won't be for me, because in hundreds of other wikis this work will be welcomed. Regards, Érico (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is some of the poorest content organisation I've seen, I mean, what did they think what did they think was going to happen? This was literally begging to occur, giving a cash prize to add any images to a site with 6 million articles that anyone can edit — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the account Joy Ayara was created two years ago, but began editing only two days ago. It would be quite unusual to participate in the campaign at such an unusually fast edit rate and suspicious manner of editing. Could there be other sleeping socks around? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Érico: are you saying that these additions will be welcomed? Irrelevant and useless images that offer no use to the reader? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I definitely didn't say that. My actual quote: the images that I add to the articles are adequate [...] in hundreds of other wikis this work will be welcomed. I am not referring to other participants, but to me, because I was mentioned above (by user Lugnuts). Érico (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you search mainspace for #WPWP #WPWPUIL there are loads of examples of not just crappy images, but the hashtag being inserted into the article itself. Ffs... ——Serial ^# 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is another uploader: Hormorkunmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again, the account was created in 2018 but edited barely anything until two days ago. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Before people rush to judge the whole competition, how about some data? The spot check I just did returned 9/10 productive additions. I don't doubt there are lousy images being added and people trying to game the system for prizes, just as there are people who game everything about Wikipedia and add lousy content all the time. Every competition we do, edit-a-thon, upload drive, etc. results in some amount of undesirable content ... and a lot of desirable content. it's when it's more trouble than it's worth that it merits some sort of intervention. And for that I'd expect to see more than a handful of anecdotes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There are likely hundreds of accounts that have been created just to enter this. Deacon Vorbis highlighted this, where they have literally just taken a photo from the lead and put it in the infobox. This is inevitable, if there is a prize, people will willingly put useless content into articles to get it. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: most contributors are probably submitting and adding good photos, but 9/10 is still a lot, just look at the damage 1 person has done. Unless some proper guidelines are made, this will keep happening. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

likely hundreds of accounts that have been created just to enter this - sooo a competition brought hundreds of new contributors, most of whom are adding content productively. This is... not a problem. FWIW I don't disagree with having clearer guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, can we just take a second to acknowledge what @Serial Number 54129: just said? Look at this — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, those new users seem to not follow other policies and guidelines regarding the insertion of photos in articles. And many of them came here for only one purpose, which is to win prizes. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And many photos being inserted into infoboxes with the wrong syntax - example Blessatayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not a massive issue in terms of visual output but a large job to clear up. I'm not against adding decent images to more article, I'm in favour of it but I wish the competition designers had been clearer about the instructions and communicated that it was going to happen. Nthep (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You'd think they'd at least drop a note on ANI or something? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So looking at the most recent activity, we have User:Bukky658 adding hundreds of images with the wrong syntax, and User:Blessatayo doing the same. An edit filter blocking this hashtag seems rather urgent. Fram (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure blocking would help, since they might upload anyway with a different hashtag. Perhaps logging is better? I guess if the hashtag is #WPWP, it would follow they won't mass-upload if they can't use the hashtag. Block/throttle seems fine? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the instructions at the competition explicitly state "Include the hashtag #WPWP in the edit summary of all articles improved with images. Then click on "Publish changes"." so stopping them from using this hashtag would be helpful. Fram (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fram, Procrastinating Reader, I will whip one up shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the low quality ones tend to be non-confirmed and adding pictures at a rapid speed, I'm thinking perhaps maybe a throttle of more than X per hour from non-confirmed accounts would get rid of the crap from the contest, whilst making it possible for those that perhaps know what they're doing to contribute? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Tracking as 1073 (hist · log) (log-only mode for now), if someone wants to whip up a variant of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed for this filter I'll put it into play as soon as I'm satisfied with the filter's performance. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is, alongside edit summaries, some users have been inserting the hashtag into articles and talk pages as well, so it might be good to make sure the edit filter accepts those namespaces. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also happy to just have it as a warning - "hey, you, welcome to Wikipedia, you appear to be participating in whatever competition, please keep in mind that images should be relevant, yadda yadda yadda" GeneralNotability (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess see how it goes in log? If, indeed, the majority of contributions are positive and it's just a few users with a large number of edits between them making problematic edits, they the problematic bunch can just be handled manually. If it's a lot of different users, then perhaps move to warn / throttle. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: If I read the filter correctly, that only catches edits where the hashtag uses uppercase letters ('#WPWP' not '#wpwp'). Lowercase versions should probably be included as well. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 07:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Majavah, I'll double check, but I thought I used irlike (case-insensitive regex match). GeneralNotability (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No, having people add relevant images to an article but using the wrong syntax is not reason to shut down the initiative they're participating in. Syntax issues can be fixed with AWB. Finding images to use in an article and adding them to the best of your ability cannot. The only actual problems I've seen here are (a) someone who added duplicate images to articles -- now blocked, and (b) someone adding "#WPWP" to article text -- now blocked. Oppose filtering out the competition without more evidence of net harm. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I left a msg on the talk page for Bukky658 asking them to use the correct infobox image syntax (they were also putting images into |image_flag= that aren't flags). The last half-dozen edits were to add images AFTER the infobox. MB 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: is right, this isn't like the TikTok swarming, because there are actually people who are contributing with good images. This hole is proving quite hard to get out off. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why the mechanics at Meta do not say anything about the eligibility of participants. For example, the user has been around for a few months and has made at least a few hundred edits already. It's probably a reason why we are seeing an influx of new users whose edits are mostly related to this contest. For some comparison, ArbCom elections have eligibility criteria. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

LSGH, we're not really electing anything. It's a contest to encourage a drive to create content. Or rather, make use of already-created content. There's no eligibility criteria to edit Wikipedia. The issue here is that some people only see the cash bounty and run in to add pictures for the money, rather than spend any time familiarising with the guidelines first. But any attempt to add a guideline on activity prior to the contest date would just limit the number of participants, including the good ones. I think it's a slightly iffier problem than it appears at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that cash prize, and then some would just run away with it rather than stay around and contribute productively elsewhere. Maybe the quantity criteria there is being taken for granted in order to just add photos (whether they are helpful or not) without even having experienced dealing with them before the contest. That probably shows why they may be placed improperly or are not even given proper captions, which other more experienced editors would need to fix. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding on, often with campaigns like this, one of the goals is to bring in new editors (for example, for Wiki Loves Monuments on the Commons, in many nations the majority of participants are brand new to the project despite the relative complexity of uploading images + dealing with copyright/licensing). Contests like WPWP that involve simple editing are a nice way to engage new editors, but yes, you do end up with some who don't grasp the rules and make poor edits. Contests like Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Earth, etc. on Commons result in the upload of hundreds (probably thousands?) of copyvios and out-of-scope images, but it's taken on the chin and dealt with on a per-file/per-user basis since the net positive is considered worth it. Spot-checking through recent hashtag contributions, I think the vast majority of contributions are positive, and that shutting it down is an overreaction. Adding a tag for #wpwp edits would be helpful for patrolling these edits. I think GeneralNotability's idea above to have an edit filter warning with advice for new users is a good one as well. For WPWP, I think a good path forward would be to expand the "How to participate" rule set to include more explicit notes on image relevant and quality, requiring captions for all image additions, and disqualification criteria (i.e. adding multiple inadequate images may result in the user being disqualified). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone curious about the significance of the "NG" in the "#wpwpng". It's the 2 letter country code for Nigeria, and they have extra prizes on top of the general contest prizes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hardly surprising as the organiser founded Wikimedia Nigeria. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh - just saw this. I'm in the process of one-by-one rolling back all the images additions made by Godstime Elijah - several dozen just rammed in a) apparently randomly chosen by keyword, b) without regard to quality, c) without caption, at d) unsuitable positions in the article (just pasted at very top). Often duplicates of already present images, often bad quality, often almost unrelated. The hashtag is lacking, but I'm pretty sure this is the impetus. That shit ain't helpful. If an admin wants to save my wrist and do a mass rollback, I wouldn't say no. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

...and since they apparently don't notice what's going on and are keeping at it, it's like shoveling back the tide. Holding for now pending application of brakes / heavier machinery. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, I've pblocked them from mainspace. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Thanks. Would you agree this is best rolled back en masse? From my current sample 90% are in the wrong location, about half are unsuitable for the topic, about one third are duplicates, another third of too low quality to use. I think that suggests a complete do-over rather than picking out the few possibly-suitable-after-cleanup ones. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, I'd rather a different administrator make that call, I'm not certain enough in either direction. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would !vote that they be rolled back. User:Ababio70's additions are of similarly low value. -22:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed the obvious duds. Some have been vetted, captioned and repositioned by others, using three times the effort this editor spent in horking them into the articles in the first place :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability, Elmidae, ProcrastinatingReader, Berrely, and Fram: (and others here) This is an international contest which was prepared in total good-faith and with the best of intentions to help improve Wikipedia articles with images mainly from the other contests, like Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Africa and Wiki Loves Earth. I understand that some of the participants are doing significant damage adding irrelevant and out of place images to the articles, but please, try to refrain attacking the organizers, including User:T Cells, which is a much respected member of the Wikimedia community except on this Wikipedia, where he was banned for a very (write random insult here) reason years ago, as some of you certainly know and remember - and that's why he can't come himself here and explain what's going on. I also can't understand why ppl are mentioning Nigeria at all in this discussion. Ok, there's a problem with the contest. I'm part of the team that is supporting and organizing the contest. If the decision to ban the hashtag (and, therefore, the contest) from here is not definitive, I'll do my best to help solving the issues that are happening. Please, let's try to handle this with the proverbial wiki cordiality and AGF. I believe the contest has an excellent potential of being a very positive input for Wikipedia, and nobody wants that damage being done to the articles. Can we possibly work out a solution together? Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@DarwIn: If I may refresh your memory—and without inserting any random insults—Wikicology was banned for, among other things: socking, undeclared autobiographical editing, self-promotion, introducing errors to articles, introducing copyright-violating text and images, and frankly lying with regard his own credentials. An excellent CV for a "much respected" member of the Wikimedia community. Note, I hold him no grudge: but it's an insult to this project to dismiss the evidence as "random insults". ——Serial ^# 17:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I know the process, I've checked it recently, and my own POV is that it was grossly exaggerated (that's why the "random insult" thing), and that some errors were done, but T Cells has improved incredibly since then. But all that is not ontopic here, since it's not related in the least with the current situation. I hope we can work out some kind of solution here. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

DarwIn, I can understand it was in good faith, and I hold much respect for T Cells, as of course there are many Wikipedia articles with images available but not inserted. I guess some say, "It was a good idea, with semi-poor execution", I think maybe if the rules had been made clearer this could have been heavily prevented, but I'm not one to say. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, GeneralNotability, here is an edit filter notice if needed: User:Berrely/Photos — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DarwIn, just to be clear, my comment wasn't anything to do with T Cells or me making any implication of impropriety. I was just curious what the "ng" meant, since it isn't listed on the main contest page and most edits aren't including #wpwpng, only #wpwp. I did some digging, and saw that there's a simultaneous Nigeria contest going on which requires "#wpwp #wpwpng" hence I made the statement linking to that contest page, which is this, in case anyone else is curious what the ng means, or if it might affect what we put in the edit filter etc. I support things which gets more editors into Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've messaged WPWP organizers proposing to add the following to the rules:

• All image additions must include a caption that describes what the image is of.
• Images should be placed in the article in a spot where it is relevant and helpful for the reader to understand the subject
• Users who repeatedly violate these guidelines may be disqualified.

Rules won't prevent poor edits 100% (there are always those who won't read them), but I think this can help increase contribution quality and hopefully serve as one of the solutions coming out of this discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cash prizes for editing? Is that a regular WMF thing or is this new? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DarwIn: For future reference, if you're going to be running these sorts of competitions with hashtags and contribution tracking, it would probably help if someone dropped a note at WP:EFN about it - we can literally add a filter to tag these edits based on the hashtag, so for example there could be a "2020 WPWP competition" tag. That would help both organizers (you can filter a user's contributions based on the tag we apply) and enwiki patrollers (so that people know to watch that specific tag). It also encourages the new editors to actually use the hashtag (a few haven't been great about that) - if they don't use the hashtag, it doesn't show up when you search for the tag, and they don't get credit. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Saying that this campaign was "organized" is an insult to the world organize. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I participate in this. I have to say the instruction is unclear and tracking results likewise is opaque. But we will always run into people who don't understand instructions no matter what kind of events we do (editathon, GAN backlog elimination drive, Wiki Loves Earth, Art & Feminish, Wiki Ed etc.), whether it be writing an article about someone who doesn't meet notability guidelines, doing poor but speedy reviews, poor referencing, close paraphrasing, uploading non-free content as "free" content, not respecting NPOV. My point is, people have been adding crap to Wikipedia with or without any of these events. By Rhododendrites's account, most of the contribution are productive so the campaign so far as a whole should be viewed as net-positive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OhanaUnited, most are positive, but the 1/10 of people who are adding crap photos that are unrelated and random are still a lot. The problem with the edit filter that GeneralNotability set up is that there are genuinely some people who are adding useful photos in short periods of time. Take a look. I propose putting starting by putting the edit filter warning, that should deter users with unconstructive edits (something like this) and if that doesn't work just blocking edits with the hashtag altogether. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I found SuperHamster suggestions very good. I would perhaps even make them a bit more draconian, and include a clear rule that any reverted action would be disqualified, and a large number of reverted actions could imply the whole disqualification of the participant. I hope monitoring the actions and warning when necessary as Berrely suggest is enough to keep it going. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Greeting, I am also involved in this competition. First of all I understand the validity of the concerns and frustration of the AV users. From what I understand, the WPWP campaign rules clearly say images must be constructive and proper captions should be added. The hashtag is to allow easier tracking of the edits under this campaign. From my point of view, can we just block the users who violate the standard EN WIKI guidelines? If someone is not adding proper images, we can warn them first, and block them immediately if they ignore the warnings. Even if they created new account their contributions will be lost (not counted), so it won't be a viable option for them. Also, I feel that in this thread some experienced users are aggressive and not very polite. While I understand the frustration, I request everyone to calm down and see the bright side of this campaign. Although I was a bit disappointed by the 'aggression', but we are human. I request everyone to understand the good faith and to solve this issue without getting enraged or jeopardizing the campaign. Also, isn't 1 out of 10 edit on EN WIKI is damaging already, with or without a campaign going on? I hope I'm not offending anyone, thanks for understanding. --Navinsingh133 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Navinsingh133, you have made valid points, but it is a little bit hard to not get frustrated at this campaign — something like this could have easily been predicted occurring. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• The idea behind this competition is a good one - who could be against improving Wikipedia with images? - but the execution is very poor. When there are significant cash prizes at stake (in many parts of the world $500 is several months' earnings for someone not considered poor) there need to be much clearer rules, and they need to be clear before the competition starts. For example most of the prizes are for "unique Wikipedia articles improved with" something, but I can see no obvious definition of "improved with", or indication of who decides that. In such circumstances it is natural than people will go for objective quantity rather than subjective quality. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• While I understand that $500 is a significant amount of money -- it is to me as well -- I can't say that I'm thrilled at the idea of being paid for editing Wikipedia, as it seems antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos. Are there other projects or competitions in which monetary prizes are offered? What does that do to the volunteer nature of editing? Adding images to articles is not -- despite the fact that I often do it -- the most important need around here that it alone should get compensated. How about paying our admins for the b.s. they have to put up with? Or paying editors who have to struggle through the usual mud-throwing of editing contentious subjects? Maybe deletionists should put up prizes for those who delete the most material from the encyclopedia in any month, and inclusionists do the same for those who save articles from being deleted at AfD?
  No, I don't like the idea of cash prizes one little bit, and I'm surprised that the WMF -- so anxious to put its boot into local projects and kick around a little -- allows it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I'm pretty sure they actually don't allow paying for editing, including in the context of contests. (It's in the Grant guidelines, and I think affiliates typically use the same rule.) But, strictly speaking, the prize is a $500 "gift voucher", per m:WPWP. :/ --Yair rand (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is no real difference between a gift voucher and cash, the result is the same, payment for editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: It's certainly a lot closer to cash than I'm comfortable with, especially given the amount, but I think we need to make the boundary of "payment for editing" a bit clearer. There have been contests/events in the past with prizes (t-shirts, swag), for the purpose of slightly increasing the enthusiasm of the participating volunteers, while still being clearly not "payment" as we'd normally think of it, as in, people definitely weren't participating just to get the prize. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. However, the spectrum from that to, well, $500 gift certificates, is one we probably should have stopped on somewhere along the way. --Yair rand (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Giving out swag is one thing, cash or cash vouchers is another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Post-move cleanup required for draftified article John Chiminski?

I'm not sure what to do here ... it looks like an editor moved John Chiminski to Draft:John Chiminski without requesting a delete of the redirect. It seems to be attracting further edits [20]. I'm not requesting a G6 speedy redirect because clearly it will be considered controversial at this point. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bri, nope, doesn't seem controversial to me - it was a copypaste from draft back to mainspace, so G6 is appropriate. Will do shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I did nuke some of your cleanup in the process...let me know if you want me to send you the article as it stood after your changes. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No need, thanks; I think I can remember what I did. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

GT Racing: Motor Academy

Hello,

For this page, I think we could speed things up. On Wd, it is already proposed for deletion. The subject is clearly promotional and not encyclo. In any case, it is not intended to be remembered. On WD, when there is a sitelink, you have to wait until the article is deleted to delete that of wd and this article does not take the path. I’m not totally familiar with your local traditions, what do you think ? Best regards.

—Eihel (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eihel, I'd try WP:AFD if I were you. I don't know what Wd is and it doesn't really matter. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Does not meet WP:G11. Legacy article, unsourced in current version, WP:AFD is the way to go. Like Drmies says. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have taken note of your comments, I thank you @Drmies and Deepfriedokra:. As I wrote to you, I am not completely familiar with enwp and I thought I would have help until the end. "it doesn't really matter", of course, but for me this is an obvious case and WD, which means Wikidata (therefore still part of Wikimedia), can only erase this obvious case if there is no sitelink. sd done. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, for my mistake @Drmies and Deepfriedokra:, in fact the wd element was linked to a redirect to this page. The item (spam) is now deleted. Thanks for your help. —Eihel (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor JBW is heavy on Page oversight

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

---

Benjamin Harrison V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Harrison_V#

Inflammatory notes made today on page and corrections made but this editor is heavily guarding this page and will not allow correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanmemescorrecting (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The disruptive edits you've made have warranted warnings from JBW and myself. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And I've notified JBW of this post, which was a required action on your part. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OP placed ani notice on article page. At least they tried. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

So this is a content dispute over "inflammatory content". I don't know if it is sourced. To wit-- {

This was a stark contrast to Harrison's personal acceptance and practice of slaveholding, though he joined a 1772 petition to the King that he abolish the slave trade.

At least it isn't a WP:BLP --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! Meanmemescorrecting edit warred to restore the ANI notice in the article. If anything, OP is being a little too intense over a content dispute. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• You have less than a dozen edits but you found yourself at ANI already. Is this a request for boomerang or what? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• I did not see a missing sock anywhere, though coming here was fast work. Meanmemescorrecting, this is a content dispute, and you have been very rude. You need to discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article and seek WP:CONSENSUS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• At 15:43 once again edit warred and added the AN notice to the article. I will partial block for the article. Feel free to undo if you think me oerly high-handed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not at all, go ahead. Harrison may have held plenty ideas we would vehemently disagree with today, but still, repeatedly dragging him to ANI...?!  ;) ——Serial ^# 16:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

🤦 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. This whole section is about the fact that I am "heavily guarding this page and will not allow correction". I have never edited the article. In fact my only involvement has been to post a note to Meanmemescorrecting's talk page explaining that when one removes content from an article one should explain why, after another editor had reverted Meanmemescorrecting's editing. So that is what "heavily guarding this page" and "not allow[ing] correction" looks like? I wonder what it would have looked like if I had seen a new editor being reverted by someone else, not me, and in an attempt to help the new editor I had explained to him how he might be able to make such reverts less likely in future. JBW (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: You are one of the most helpful and patient admins I know. @Meanmemescorrecting: I find it frustrating when someone starts a thread like this and then absents themselves. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted another addition of commentary to the article Benjamin Harrison V, this time by 99.203.22.169. Can someone with more patience than I have please explain that such comments go on talk pages, if anywhere, rather than in articles? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I explained it to them, though I cannot claim exercising patience in doing so. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Noe Meanmemescorrecting is indef'ed for block evasion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Main page/sandbox

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

---

Is that suppose to popup on new page feed? I don't know what's going on there. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted that and block creator for a day. Weirdness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Weirdness explained. User unblocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Snowded Report followed by Kangaroo Court

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

---

It is in session as I type this

I wish to question about the way administrators have handled the above report. Their comments made it pretty clear that any semblance of fairness or even-handedness was completely absent from the off. The blunt outcome was that within less than an hour of reporting a personal attack I was told, alongside several other unsubstantiated accusations, I was under imminent threat of being blocked if I didn't withdraw the report immediately. This lack of neutrality has been compounded by a failure to take proper account of the examples I cited and also by making further completely spurious accusations.

My report was made after an accusation of dishonesty was not withdrawn and then was picked up by another user with a grudge who has been trying to get me blocked since day one. I made the ANI report as a last resort but the conduct of some of the admin team is simply shocking for people who are supposed to be the guardians of Wikipedia's objectives.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see this ANI thread where OP refused to provide dif's and whose own conduct is under review.]] --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also extensive related discussion at User talk:Sirjohnperrot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• What Okra said. There is a debate whether Sirjohnperrot needs a tban or an indef, and he has yet to substantiate his claims there. But by all means, everyone go and jump in the discussion. Wouldn't be ANI without a crowd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  If I join the kangaroo court, do I get my own kangaroo? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport Tie me kangaroo down. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's BYOK, so it's up to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Particularly , User talk:Sirjohnperrot#July 2020, User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Conflict of interests disclosure, User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Final warning, and User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Illustration. Yes, more eyes is not a bad idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out re the above that I have repeatedly sought to provide the evidence asked for, calling it 'diffs' was puzzling since none of the posts had been deleted and it is simply untrue that have I refused to do anything. These people just make up accusations as they go along - libel threats, COI issues, making aspersions, using 'passive agressive vitriol' now I refused to provide difs apparently - not a grain of truth in any of it. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've started a poll for a community indef block. This way no single admin can undo it, and the community is empowered and can decide the issue of block and/or unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Attention needed to formal closure request

Hi, I started an RfC 28 days ago and requested a formal close due to the controversial history of the issue. I made the request on June 15th, and an administrator left a comment on June 23rd proposing a close with a limited scope. I accepted this, but the request has not been touched by an administrator since. It's not my intent to jump the queue, but I think that the outstanding need for a close may have been overlooked. Other editors are getting frustrated by the wait. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fascism

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

---

The definition of fascism is incorrect and appears to be someone's opinion. It does not line up with encyclopedia Britanica, nor merriam Webster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.133.62 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: You should bring this up on the article's talk page. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Need close: Requested lift of TBAN on ANI 28 June 2020

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

---

I started my request on this ANI thread, which was the board of my original ANI and the closer wrote that I could appeal "here" (which I interpreted as on ANI board). There have been several responses in support of lifting my TBAN. I am not sure of the process of how it gets closed. Please let me know if there is some other step I need to do. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I encourage an uninvolved administrator to close this request, since the consensus is pretty easy to see, I think. I cannot do so, since I am involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll close shortly Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Reopen Site ban proposal: SashiRolls?

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

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls

Procedural..to maybe help as alternative to the Arbcom case request. No problem if you say no. From the previous one take it as the community having decided that some type of sanction is called for. Reopen (based on discussion ar arbcom) would be to deermine what that sanction sould be. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. Some kind of review somewhere ought to occur. Paul August ☎ 16:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth it or would it just be unnecessary drama, if the case is going to ArbCom anyway? Drama would be extended over 3 sections (the original ban just a few weeks ago, the ArbCom case opened one day ago, and then a reopened site ban proposal). Perhaps it'd be most appropriate to reopen only if AC decline to take the case, and if there's a general feeling of procedural error. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Leave it at Arbcom...for now and see if they accept. If they do, then this discussion would be, if not moot, then certainly duplicatory; if they don't, then we can carry on here as we would have done had the RfA never been filed. ——Serial ^# 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Leave at Arbcom. I didn't get the impression that the ANI was reaching a strong conclusion, and if anything, might probably have gotten further to a no consensus had it stayed open longer? However, the issues are material, repetitive, and complex. ArbCom is a better forum to resolve such things imho. Britishfinance (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course! My idea is that this merely offers another option for Arbcom North8000 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Change in blocking policy

As a result of this 3RN report wherein I block an editor for 48 hours for a first time 3RR violation, it has come to my attention that Ritchie333 changed the blocking policy on June 19 to state that partial blocks should be the default for edit warring blocks. Given that the changes were made with very little discussion, I'm noting the recent policy change here as the change effects most active admins.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not quite how I read that, and I would note that written policy follows practice, not the other way around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good call, Ritchie. I've adopted that modality pretty much since the implementation of partial blocks. It is incredibly useful in curtailing edit warring, with little downside. I'm still surprised when I see AN3 reports closed with a sitewide block. What is that now — a punishment? El_C 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• It seems like the most relevant change here is Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule often result in a block from the pages the user is disrupting, or, if required, the entire site.. I disagree that that instructs "partial blocks should be the default for edit warring blocks", it seems to just say that some admins use them for edit warring. It does seem reasonable to at least consider a partial block when an edit warring issue arises, though, I'll keep that in mind. Still getting used to the whole idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, having now read the discussion at ANEW I see why you have said this. I disagree with Ritchie333 that the policy requires us to default to partial blocks—that policy change would require a broader discussion and certainly a notification to admins. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a significant support for allowing the feature. In my specific case, the de facto example I wanted partial blocks was Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), where we could have blocked him for 12 hours on a page he was edit warring on and got a discussion, instead of protecting the page (antagonising other editors) or sitewide blocking him (which made the heavens tremble). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Option four (something else). The RfC was to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled, and broadly how they should be applied. Edit warring was certainly discussed as a good candidate for partial blocks, but there was no formal discussion around changing the blocking policy to require partial blocks be the default for edit warring. Like I said, such a policy change would not only need a formal discussion but would also need to be communicated broadly to admins, so it doesn't catch them by surprise like it (sort of) did with Ponyo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Weird, this is the second time today someone's changed their comment while I replied but I didn't get an edit conflict. This time I edit conflicted with El C, but your change didn't show up in the EC diff. Anyway, to reply to your changed comment, I have no objection to allowing partial blocks to be used for edit wars, I think that's more than appropriate. My objection is with requiring admins to default to it, for the reasons I've outlined above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the same camp, it is fine to have another tool but we don't need to tell admin which way to block. As I stated early, policy is a reflection of practice, and we need to see how it hammers out now that it is in place, rather than try to dictate to admin why type of block to use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A discussion worth having. Sure, Ponyo was well within their rights to sitewide block, but the user has only edited one article. That's what partial block are for par excellence. El_C 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not the first time I've questioned why somebody has used sitewide vs. partial blocking; the responses previously have been either "good point, I'll remember that next time" or "yes, this had to be sitewide because of [x]". To be clear, I'm not disputing the block (I think there's a solid case for some sort of block there) or wanting it appealed - I just want to make sure admins are considering the wider range options available to them. If they're getting defensive or think I'm having a go at them, or think their block is bad, they've missed the point I was trying to make. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to the block at the 3RN report I linked you wrote "According to the policy, Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule often result in a block from the pages the user is disrupting, or, if required, the entire site. Why was it required?" (all bolding and emphasis yours). You were quoting policy that you, yourself, changed just days before. It's important that admins are at least aware of the changes you made if you will be challenging them on such.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is on Ponyo for missing the point. Your conversation at ANEW did suggest that admins must default to partial blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed this to "Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, often results in a block, either from the pages the user is disrupting or from the entire site." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Partial blocks are an option, but we should apply WP:CLUE. Guy (help!) 23:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've raised this issue before at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2020/May#Partial blocks, but it didn't attract much attention. I think we should work towards greater guidance, either to find a default first-offense block scope and duration that should be used absent motivation for the contrary, or to come up with a set of guidelines of when admins should use full blocks vs. partial blocks. Otherwise, we risk the same behavior being subject to either a 24-hour siteblock, 72-block pblock, or whatever the blocking admin's default is. Admin discretion is fine, but basing disciplinary actions solely on the personal preferences of the blocking admin is too arbitrary. Again, I believe that both full and partial blocks continue to have a place in combating edit warring, but there should be a default setting that all admins use for 50%+ of cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  My gut sense is that sitewide blocks may still be an appropriate course of action for brand-new SPA accounts engaged in edit warring past 3RR (as was the case here), given the high likelihood that the editor may continue their disruption on related or non-mainspace pages. For cases where the editor is less clearly engaging in bad faith or has a history of positive contributions, I do think that partial blocks will generally be the best course of action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill, I think that would fall more under a WP:DE than an WP:EW block. El_C 22:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, It's at the intersection, no? The offense that clearly licensed the block was a violation of 3RR, but the manner in which 3RR was violated suggests further problems that do fall under the more general category of disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am of the opinion that, in that scenario, DE should take precedence over EW. With DE we want an enhanced restriction (user talk page only, if that), whereas with EW, there's also the article talk page being available, or if not that, different articles, or if not those, even different namespaces. El_C 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill, as above: let's not be prescriptive, we should apply Clue. Guy (help!) 23:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  There isn't uniform agreement on the usefulness of partial blocks; at least one admin thinks other tools are more effective and won't use them. (Some research and evaluation of their efficacy might help establish community norms more rapidly.) isaacl (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Since I’ve been mentioned indirectly, I’ll point out that my prediction that partial blocks create controversy when used and vastly expand the power of admins beyond anything any policy before them envisioned has largely been proven true. Basically Ponyo was right here. The full block was justified and a partial block wouldn’t have accomplished anything. I’m probably the loudest voice on this project pointing out that they cause just as much disruption as they prevent, if not more, but there’s a significant minority of us across the projects, including multiple stewards and other highly respected users who refuse to use them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Basically Ponyo was right here. The full block was justified and a partial block wouldn’t have accomplished anything." And that's why I get annoyed at other admins. You didn't say why. I assume you're saying it for a good reason, but without explaining your working out, all I can do is shake my head and say "you are wrong". :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 it is an SPA that was edit warring on the only page that it has edited. That’s indicative that it is extremely likely to cause issues elsewhere on the project. Some admins would have NOTHERE blocked if they saw it outside of ANEW. From a big picture point of view, partial blocks have created far more dramah than almost any other technical feature: people get just as mad when you partial block them and instead of limiting that anger to one page, where you can eventually talk them down and hopefully unblock them in the case of an edit warring block, they can be angry and spread that anger on multiple pages because they are Right(tm). It makes more sense just not to block someone and give them a warning than to partial block them in 99% of cases. In this case, however, there was enough to suggest that disruption would continue that a full block was preventative. When a full block is preventative and a partial block is likely to spread the issue elsewhere, then a full block makes total sense. Basically if you’re going to partial block, you should just warn since it is more likely to achieve long-term good. This passed the threshold for a warning there was indications that this user was likely to be a problem if they were page blocked (SPAs who are “right” tend yo cause issues everywhere.) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• The change by SarahSV mentioned above is good. An admin should always use clue and sometimes a partial block would be appropriate, and sometimes a site block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• The change by Sarah is a positive. If someone has rocked up and the first or functionally first thing they do is EW then a siteblock is probably warranted. If there's even a little more helpful activity then a pageblock becomes much more warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think that? It depends on the circumstances, but a genuine brand new user who reverts a few times because they don't understand why the system isn't accepting their changes properly (sic), good faith should be assumed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Probably more helpful than trading anecdotes and impressions is to gather and analyze data. Since pblocks have been instituted, how many editors have been pblocked? How many of those editors were then given a full block? If 90% of the pblocked editors went on to do something that resulted in a full block, then we can conclude pblocks are not effective. If it's only 10%, then we can conclude that pblocks are effective. Data > opinion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Data would be good. Sure, when deciding whether to impose a partial block or a sitewide one, one walks a fine line sometime between being judicious and assuming an abundance of good faith. My impression is that most partial blocks I, at least, apply do not escalate further, but that's obviously anecdotal. El_C 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not exactly prolific, but of the 6 partials I've issued, 4 have caused the editor to stop editing, 1 to resume the disruption after the end of the block, and 1 to immediately begin content dispute resolution on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Data time! I tried doing this with SQL, but it ended up timing out even on Toolforge SQL directly, so I've gone about it a slightly different way: rather than looking at the actual logging tables, which I couldn't find an easy way of doing without causing a timeout, I grabbed a list of user talk pages that had a partial block template on, and then checked those users against the API to see if they had any blocks. I then wrote a quick little bit of JS to pull out that API query and refine for only the users who had a currently active non-partial block.

  The result? 210 users were included in the query (that is to say, I had a sample of 210 users who had been partially blocked from editing). Of that 210, 42 of them are now fully blocked from editing. 32 of them are blocked indefinitely, whilst the other 10 have varying levels of temporary blocks.

  That seems like pretty good numbers to me, to be honest, but I'll leave that to those who are actually doing the blocking day to day to confirm or rebuke. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Naypta, that's very interesting, thank you for the analysis, although it immediately makes me long for a control group. I wonder: do we know what the sitewide recidivism rate is for full blocks? (Or was, before pblocks?) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So, there’s a reason people talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics. The presentation of data as well as whether it is capable of answering the question asked are both extremely important factors. In this case, the numbers might be interesting, but they don’t actually tell us all that much. First, as Izno points out, people could just quit after one. Next, the question is not if a full block later would occur, but if a full block at that point in time would have been better and cause less disruption. Those are subjective standards that are also point in time, and the data collected can’t really answer those questions at all. Finally, there’s the question of if the reaction to the block is better or worse if it’s partial from the blocked user. My experience observing this has been worse (people tend to get angrier is what I’m saying) and that causes more issues elsewhere. Anyway, just pointing out that “data>opinions” usually isn’t the best way to go about testing the effectiveness of subjective questions, since the data points on these topics tend to have many confounding factors. Basically you can pre-select your outcomes by asking the right question and picking a metric that corresponds to it. Something like that isn’t particularly useful in decision making, even if done with an attempt to be objective: the things being measured inherently can’t be. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: To be totally clear, I certainly don't mean to present a bunch of numbers and go "yes, this in and of itself should decide policy"; rather, I hope that having those numbers might be useful in terms of the decision-making here. You are, of course, completely right that you can pull out many conclusions from the same datasets.

For what it's worth, I've checked, and of those 210 partially blocked users, 43 are not indefinitely blocked and have made edits in the last 30 days. So that's 32/210 indefinitely blocked, 35/210 not blocked at all and have edited in the last 30 days, 8/210 have been temporarily blocked but active within the last 30 days, and the rest are presumably inactive. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. I wasn’t assigning intent to you. Just noting that data in itself can often be misleading and that in real life, interpreting data related to subjective judgements is something you normally hire a professional to do (as an example: your income taxes; all based on actual numbers, but if they’re in complex areas you should hire a tax accountant or tax lawyer.) Basically when we are asking as subjective a question as “Did this one technical feature prevent more or less disruption then this other technical feature”, raw numbers are rarely that useful as a decision making aid. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting though that Naypta's numbers match Izno's. Of Izno's set of 6 pblocks, 4/6 stopped editing, 1/6 continued to be disruptive, and 1/6 went on to be productive. Of Naypta's set of 210 pblocks, 32 (or about 1/6th) continued to be disruptive, 35 (again 1/6th) were productive, 8 somewhere in between disruptive and productive, and the remaining 135 (3.85/6) stopped editing. Which raises the question: would that 1/6th that was productive still have been productive if they were fully blocked instead of partially? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Policy pages are nothing but a reflection of current community consensus. I will absolutely lose it at any editor who's trying to change policy pages based on a local consensus or "common sense". Any changes must be made in line with a community-level consensus. With all that being said, I view both Ritchie's and Sarah's updates to be uncontentious and in line with this standard, simply reflecting an update in the overarching community consensus. The OP's accusation that Ritchie "changed the policy" is an egregious falsehood, unbecoming of the admin who made the accusation. It was clearly a simple update in wording meant to reflect the new partial blocking mechanism. This thread should be closed and condemned to the archives, never to be spoken of again. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Did you read the discussion at WP:ANEW that I linked to in my opening post? There were other administrators commenting here, including GorillaWarfare and TonyBallioni, who did read that discussion and agreed that it did appear that the intent of the change in wording Ritchie333 made to Wikipedia:Blocking policy was to make partial blocks the default for edit warring where any site-wide blocks used in lieu of partial blocks need to be justified. I noted the change here as, if site-wide blocks for edit warring are only to be made "if required", administrators should be aware of this change so they aren't caught by surprise if asked to defend a site-wide block as I was in this case. I'm at a loss to understand how you determined that noting the change here is "unbecoming" of me, and accusing me of making "an egregious falsehood" is no different than accusing me of lying, which is a personal attack. Will you be levying the same "egregious falsehood" claim against EdJohnston, who does a great deal of the heavy lifting at WP:ANEW, and who made similar observations regarding the change in that specific discussion?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I think Sarah’s wording is fairly uncontentious and clearer, and wouldn’t object to it. If it’s the default, I think that’d be a policy change which would need further discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I was expecting it to be a year or more from the implementation of partial blocks before sneaky changes to policies started compelling admins to use them, but I'm pretty sure in the initial RfC I predicted this exact thing was going to happen. I hadn't anticipated that silent changes would also compel an explanation for not using a tool in the set; good job on that escalation. That said, admins are servants of the community and I'm on board with the update if that's the community's wish, but I expect any such change will be the result of thorough consensus in a very-well-advertised RfC, and will be communicated in the admins' newsletter before it comes into effect. A short discussion among a few policy hawks on the policy's talk page is so egregiously not good enough that you should be ashamed, and the fact you tried to challenge an action based on a change you made and which you hadn't told anyone about is thoroughly within WP:POINT territory. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

8 years-undetected hoax article

I guess the hoax I nominated for speedy deletion deserves to be at WP:HOAXLIST since it went undetected for 8 years. Page title: Battle of Ceber –User456541 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I added it ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is a hoax, see pl:Bitwa pod Cebrem as well as pl:Przyczółek_baranowsko-sandomierski, which mentions it. If it's a hoax, it's one that's well-integrated and sourced on Polish Wikipedia. I'm not qualified to assess the reliability of those sources though...paging K.e.coffman, who I know edits in the WW2-in-Poland area. I'm going to restore the page for now so it can be checked over. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is included in e.g. this book from 2000 or this one from 1966, no idea why it was considered a hoax and speedy deleted. It was created by User:Halibutt, who was a well-respected editor, so unlikely to create hoaxes. At the very least this deserved an AfD as there was nothing blatant about the supposed hoax. Perhaps User:Koridas and User:User456541 can explain their reasoning? Oh, and User:Anthony Bradbury, who actually speedy deleted the page? Seems like a rather poor decision... Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about Koridas, but User456541 has some issues with speedy deletions, per his talk page. That's actually how I found this - he unnecessarily G8-tagged the talk page of an article I had tagged as A7, so I checked his contribs and found more issues. There's a number of messages on his talk page from people asking him to stop CSD-tagging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I added some sources, but then ReFill let me down, naturally...I'll try again in a bit. ——Serial ^# 15:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I dropped a note at WT:MILHIST for further investigation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" - what's happening with them?

Hi all,
Late June 2020 and early July 2020 a whole lot of draftspace pages have been created with the format Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number). Examples:

• Draft:Sample page/83001398
• Draft:Sample page/91128286

I am teh fail when it technical matters like this, and despite the "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" message I don't have a clue which editor to notify about this discussion.
Could you possibly look into this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

After a little personal investigation, these sample pages seem to be created/edited when an IP user clicks the "Edit using wiki markup" button in Help:Introduction to Wikipedia. Gricehead (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, that was implemented on 16 June 2020 by Sdkb (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and Shirt58: Yes, that was added via this discussion. There has been some follow-up discussion at the Technical Pump here, although that seems to have stalled a bit. Those two discussions should hopefully explain the change, and if you have any additional questions feel free to ask. Help would certainly be welcome if anyone wants to pick up where the VPT discussion left off. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's time to BRD revert User:Sdkb's change there - these are creating a mess and the process should be better designed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, when we left off at VPT, you were going to try to see if there was a way to link to User talk:x.x.x.x/sample page that cleared the content there and then preloaded the sample page. Did you ever find anything on that? Also, was the idea to use an adminbot to auto-delete the pages after a preset period deemed viable?

For now, we can switch anytime to directing IP editors to a subpage of their talk page if draftspace is creating too much trouble. There are several pages later on in the tutorial that use a similar setup to the present one for a different sample page (e.g. an image-filled page at the end of the images tutorial), but the number of IPs reaching these seems to be vanishingly small, since most editors dedicated enough to keep reading also followed the instruction shown to IPs at Help:Introduction to Wikipedia to log in. The system seems to be working fine for the large number of editors who do log in, so hopefully that part can be retained. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Also should speedy delete all these drafts: Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Sample_page/ - who would ever find these to resume working on them with nonsense page titles? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, and apologies for sending User talk:Primefac a teh random "{{subst:AN-notice}}". Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion by FortniteRishabS0122

FortniteRishabS0122 (talk · contribs)

I made this report in March of this year about an editor using multiple accounts for disruptive editing, it appears the editor is back again with a new account called SuperRC (talk · contribs). The editor also using other accounts as well, look at this range here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SPI is thisaway. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Ad Orientem has already blocked SuperRC indefinitely and the IP range is blocked for one month. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Large backlog at Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

As of this message, the speedy deletion category Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, with its subcategories, contains a rather large backlog of 2,411 pages. (See Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.) Administrator assistance to clear out this backlog would be appreciated, considering that it has to be done by administrators since clearing the entries requires page deletions. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it later this week. Anybody else interested in helping out should first familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons. Files which were inappropriately moved to Commons must not be deleted locally and should be nominated for DR on Commons. -FASTILY 23:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an administrator review

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

---

Could another admin please review a request by the user FTVA. I blocked them as a sock of Shaddai Wright and FTVA Official. Keep in mind, according to a (now deleted) bio this user created, they are 13 years old. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Declined the request (obviously) and removing talk page access due to that ridiculous request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

What to do about RHaworth's talk page

As most of you will remember, one of the most prolific admins in deletion, RHaworth (talk · contribs), was desysopped earlier this year, and is still getting regular traffic to his talk page from new and newish users asking about getting articles undeleted or pages salted. I've fielded a couple of these, as have others, but it would be helpful to get a few more eyes looking at. I would not be in favour of putting any sort of talk page messages or edit notices saying something like "This user is not an admin, please go elsewhere" as I'm not sure people would read it, plus it rubs RHaworth's face in it. I think just managing them as and when they come in will do for the time being. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added to my watchlist and will try to remember but teaching Japanese toddlers the word "no" for 40 hours a week makes it unlikely that I'll catch many of the requests. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It's still on my watchlist and I've fielded some requests. The only problem is that many of the requests I've looked at were good deletions of unsalvageable non-notable individuals and companies where the deleted article would be a lousy starting point for a re-write. I suppose we could just REFUND on request and count on the AfC process to catch the dross, but it feels a little unfair on them. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Even in that case, a holding reply of "This article has more puffery than Puff Daddy eating Sugar Puff sandwiches with Puff the Magic Dragon while wearing a puffer jacket" (albeit maybe phrased more diplomatically) would still be useful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe archiving his talkpage and changing the edit notice would help. Also is there a userpage template to say that someone is less active? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• He still has the admin/mop pip in the header of the page. There is no policy against that, that I'm aware of, and I doubt that is the source of all these questions, but wanted to bring it to his and other's notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Maybe somebody who had a good relationship with him should email him and ask him how he would like to proceed? He's still quasi active. His last edits were just a couple of weeks ago. I get that the needs of the project outweigh the needs of the individual editor, but hijacking somebody's talk page isn't very nice. We should at least make some attempt to contact him before we do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Honestly, I think he will see it in this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like:

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess you're either left with not putting a notice on his talkpage, and relying on talkpage stalkers to work through the detritus, or adding a notice so editors aren't wasting their time in posting requests there. So a choice between tough love or soft hate. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection to adding Ritchie333's banner. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That notice seems pretty reasonable. If they have an issue with it they can let us know here or just remove it from their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I concur. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have put the banners up, as there have been no objections. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I do think that when an admin is desysopped or leaves there should be someone assigned to their workload. I actually thought about running for RFA when I found out he had been desysopped, but then realised I'm too chicken to go through the process.--Launchballer 12:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that we're an all volunteer work group - I don't see how that would be doable. — Ched (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Unrelated edit request

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

---

In line with Template:Confirmed, would it be possible someone add a parameter to the template, so one can change "Unrelated" to their desired text? As the talk page for the said template has not been viewed since 2010 I thought it would be more worthwhile posting here, as it would get a faster reply. Thanks --DL6443 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@DL6443: I've put in an edit request on the page for you, as that's the right process to do this, rather than an AN post. Note that the talk page not having been visited or not having watchers won't be an issue, because TPERs are automatically added to a backlog category that's monitored by template editors and sysops. Hope that helps! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: Thanks a lot --DL6443 08:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities

Hello, am looking for an administrator to please review Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Is_Walter_Breuning's_death_record_available_on_Ancestry.com? and worse, the follow-up at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#If_someone_has_esophagus_problems_and_they_proceed_to_die_from_starvation,_is_the_likely_explanation_for_their_death_that_they_starved_themselves_on_purpose?. Could this speculation about the death and possible suffering of a recently deceased person please be removed? I posted this request first at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reference_desk/Humanities and they asked me to put it here. Thanks 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Breuning died 9 years ago, so he's not covered by our BLP policy which defines "recently deceased" as having died less than two years ago. Still, I blanked the second discussion per WP:NOTFORUM because it's unrelated to the encyclopedia and just generally in poor taste; if anyone cares it's in the page history, but I dont find retaining or encouraging off-topic discussion like that particularly valuable. The first discussion I've left alone since a request for particular public records is within our scope, so despite the subject matter, it's still worthwhile for improving the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Reference desk is for off-topic discussion, unrelated to building Wikipedia. WP:FORUM specifically gives Reference desk as the alternative venue for users looking to make article talk pages into Q&A fora. "Poor taste" sounds like WP:IDLI. Since WP:BLP doesn't apply and WP:RD is open for all kinds of discussion as long as they remain a dispassionate intellectual exercise, I do not see any valid rationale for removal. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that being the point of the reference desk. If you one wants to wax philosophical about whether people who cannot eat are technically killing themselves, take it to a forum or a chat room. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and WP:RD doesn't get a pass from that just because they say they do. Pointing to IDLI sounds like WP:ATAATA. Participants in that discussion characterized it as both cruel and off-topic, so there's an independent reason for my characterization of out of scope and poor taste beyond my personal feelings. You're free to revert, but please explain how that discussion has contributed to the encyclopedia? — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the pointless speculation. Those who frequent the ref desks, and those that merely like them, have often been unable to work out when discussion should stop and I support admin action to remind everyone that the ref desks are part of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologise if you felt attacked. I have no interest in reverting, I wasn't participating there, nor had I even seen it before your edit summary caught my eye; I was only trying to get some clarification as I didn't see the removal justified per WP:RD/G. Discussions on RDs rarely contribute to improving the articles; when they do, it's only incidental. And only the main namespace is the encyclopedia. The question was somewhat loaded and the discussion does try to veer toward philosophising on potentially controversial issues, but volunteers do also get it back in control keeping it informative, citing Wikipedia articles and science behind the topic. (I hope by you, you meant the generic you and not me. In any case, I would like to clarify that I do not go about the internet looking for places to "wax philosophical about whether people who cannot eat are technically killing themselves") Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I did mean the generic you, and I've replaced it with the third person to remove that ambiguity. Sorry for coming off so confrontational. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

NOTFORUM bans generic discussion on article talk pages, but allows specific content questions to be asked and answered at Refdesk. The removed thread was not a "specific" question, but a "general" question, seeking personal opinions, interpretations, and debate. Refdesk is analogous to a library reference desk, in which factual questions are provided with factual, source-based answers. It is not a NOTFORUM-exempt forum for general discussion, speculation and debate. That discussion was inappropriate if not trollish. The IP's request to shut it down is appropriate. Wugapodes' removal was appropriate. Reverting the removal, although Wug has allowed for such, would be disruptive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Swarm, that answers all my questions (thought or spelled out). Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, administrators, for looking after this. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect non-admin closure

Moved to Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 July#Gráinne Ní Mháille Primefac (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can this be addressed?

I was looking at the Special:Userlist and noted that the username that immediately follows mine is that of a blocked account named (Redacted) (clearly I ruffled someone's feathers!). Is there any way this account name can be changed so that this insult doesn't just remain out in the world forever? Not super important, but it is a bit of a slap. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: please use meta:Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia_Stewards and report that name for a "global lock and HIDE" - it will remove it from all lists. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like good advice. I personally feel we should be much more active in deleting these long-standing 'attack-name' accounts, and any new ones that come along. They maintain their insulting effect by the fact that they simply sit there, next to the genuine users name, and have a negative effect on this project long after their creators have been blocked. I haven't checked recently, but Oshwah had amassed quite a nice collection of them last time I looked. I suspect many others have too, and I imagine there are innumerable offensive/racist/homophobic and degrading account names there, also. They serve no purpose other than to illustrate how people can get away with being puerile and offensive and, in my view, Wikipedia should have matured enough by now to have addressed and removed them, whether they have actually edited, or not. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: while we can do something locally (oversight blocks with the hide option) it is almost always better to send an obvious attack name that has no constructive global edits to the stewards to deal with, you can send them an entire list by email if you have one - since it will remove the name from drop-downs/search suggestions/etc on every WMF project. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I don't have any list, as yet, but maybe I should start with Nigger', 'Cunt' and Oshwah (see here) and see how we get on. (Point of order: I make no linkage whatsoever between the three words - honest). Nick Moyes (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

😯 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks for the info. I've followed your advice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• If it didn't predate my account by six years I'd accuse "Nosebig Fathead" of offensive truth-telling! Nosebagbear (talk)

LOL. ...OK, so I've now managed to build this list of 282 deeply offensive usernames, solely relating to the 'N-word' that have all been blocked, but are still capable of being presented to users anywhere on our projects. Some might think I'm being prudish by recommending their complete removal, but I see no reasonable justification in continuing to cause offence by retaining names that clearly either attack, harass or belittle certain individuals or groups. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Not prudish but prudent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the selection being based on names starting "Ni..." as users searching the list at that point pretty much know what they're going to find. More disruptive are those where the "ni..." occurs mid-name where their appearance will definitely be unanticipated. 164 found in quarry:query/21637 -- Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we need an anti-harassment WikiProject to address derogatory usernames like these and other forms of harassment and personal attacks on the wiki, especially in the wake of the George Floyd protests. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 00:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls ban review

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321#Site ban proposal: SashiRolls

ArbCom has declined this case, which punts it back to us. My concerns are I think representative of those who have challenged this:

1. The "consensus" appears to be a bare majority of votes, whereas I would expect consensus to be more robust where it comes to something as serious as a ban;
2. While the minimum 24 hours was met, this seems a very short time in this specific case.

Accordingly, I propose that we reopen the discussion, and request that the final closure provide a rationale in line with what would be needed at a contentious AfD or whatever.

I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith, I just don't think this represents our best work as admins. Guy (help!) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think admins are solely to blame; I don't think this represents our best work as editors. ——Serial ^# 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Paul August ☎ 23:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening I'm assuming we are discussing if we should in fact open a review? Or is the subect officially already reopened per Admin Guy? Jusdafax (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because MastCell gave a detailed and reasonable response at the case request, and more than sufficient time for discussion was given. As was pointed out in the case request, over 90% of comments had been made before the day of the close, things were slowing down, and there was a consensus based both on arguments and numbers. ~60% with strong arguments is enough for a consensus. Sashi’s efforts to appeal the ban proved what everyone who supported it said: this is an editor who has a list of enemies and views everything as a battleground. We’ve already wasted more than enough time on this, and the community has already resolved it. SashiRolls is site banned, and the close was within administrative discretion. We should not overturn it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support to simply put the matter to bed. (I commented but didn't vote in the discussion, and don't expect to vote) I don't see a fatal flaw in the close, but the numbers seemed to not jibe, which is a good reason to not give numbers in a close. It is a ban, after all, and simply continuing the discussion for an addition 48 hours (my guess) isn't going to hurt anyone, and whatever the outcome, we can have faith in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You think that opening another couple of noticeboard free-for-alls will "put the matter to bed"? Oh, Dennis—you must be new here. :P MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening and allowing it stay open through the weekend (or however-long) per Sashi's original request. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening. I do not believe a consensus was reached in the initial thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support MastCell did pretty well even if we're thinking maybe not perfect and so a big thank you to MastCell for jumping into the breech on this. I think that a more thorough process and slower close is in order. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Arbcom declined 9-0. How many bites at the apple do you get? Sashi continues to blame everyone else, bring up old, irrelevant grudges, and hasn't displayed an iota of introspection. Their only admission is that they may not have presented the case well enough -- not that they present an obvious, ongoing problem to the community. But, let's waste another month, and then another month. If they want to reenter, let them spend a few months examining why their block log is so long and consider the possibility that their actions, not those of everyone else, are the cause. As Pope Julius supposedly said to Michelangelo, when will you make it end? O3000 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Numerous arbs explicitly stated that they were punting this back to the community, so the unanimous decline hardly precludes further discussion here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose If you think Mastcell's close was within admin discretion, and ARCOM's decline seems to say that it was. Then the appropriate thing would be for Sashirolls to wait the 6 months per the standard offer and appeal to the community. Why would we do any different in this case as opposed to others? Valeince (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Valeince: I don't think ARBCOM's discussion meant that they felt it was within discretion. As is quoted below they said things like "If the community wants to reopen the ban discussion or start a new one, it can be done without our involvement." They argue it's the community's job to figure this out, not theirs. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: In my mind, the only reason for an out of usual process review, which this is, is because the closer was found to have closed the discussion outside of their discretion. The ARBCOM case was built around this argument and was declined to be heard with the arbs confirming that since this was within admin discretion then the community can review. To me, that means that the review can happen when SashiRolls appeals the ban, which per usual circumstances is after the standard offer. Valeince (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd have said that they were pretty clear that the community can reopen the ban discussion at its own discretion. Hobit (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I agree, and I think our discretion should lead us to use the normal procedures in these cases. Which is the aforementioned standard offer unblock request. Valeince (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Wait for a statement (appeal?) from SashiRolls, whenever they are ready; Oppose until then. There was a clear consensus there is a conduct problem. There was a sideshow whether the situation should be taken up by ArbCom rather than the community, indirectly causing a perhaps unfortunately-timed discussion close. Regardless, an open-ended discussion reopen right now will just become us chewing our own cud and won't solve a thing. A reopen in response to a reflective statement/appeal by SashiRolls indicating how they would change their editing behaviour would be much more productive. The Arbcom interlude didn't resolve much, but did establish that while opinions how good it was may vary, the previous close is certainly not so egregiously bad to require just being set aside. That being so, let's continue the discussion if and when it has a hope of resolving the situation better, not as an exercise in procedural fairness or just trying to reverse the flow of time. Martinp (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Guy's concerns. This is the nuclear option, the state of the consensus should not be in dispute. Springee (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni & O3000. MastCell already gave further clarification specifically referencing weight of viewpoints at ArbCom,[21] which contradicts this idea put out there that they were just counting !votes. Most arbs were also not impressed with Sashiroll's WP:NOTTHEM behavior, dubious requests for extensions, etc., so even if the ban was overturned, there's a pretty clear indication that the behavior wasn't going to change after their final-final-final warning. Even if the !votes had been 50-50, it still could have been closed in favor of the ban because the continued problem was demonstrated that other sanctions had been exhausted (i.e., opinions no matter the percentage opposing the ban did not carry sufficient weight). That is how WP:CONSENSUS works.

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE has guidance on following that up: Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result. The better approach would have been to take the first step of asking MastCell on their talk page to add clarification to their close with respect to weight if that is really the sticking point. They gave a further explanation elsewhere, so we're at a point there would need to be a very high bar for reopening the discussion. When an editor has a history of tendentious behavior that's repeatedly established to the point of needing the "nuclear" option, part of a closer's discretion is to not let the discussion languish when the problems/endpoints are clear and the situation is unlikely to get better by letting it sit longer. There would need to be a pretty grand reason for exception at this point after both the initial close and what happened at ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per TonyBallioni & 03000. I found MastCell's reasoning to be very compelling, and SashiRolls has eaten enough of our time.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not only do we need a fair process, we need the appearance of a fair process. I don't think we have that. I'm concerned about a number of issues: 1) that the discussion was still very much ongoing, 2) that the editor asked for a delay until the weekend and didn't get it, 3) that reasonable people could have reasonable concerns that the closer was "rushing" to the close due to a bias. I don't have a clue if the 3rd one is true, but the arguments for it (active in a similar area on opposite sides, only minimally active with admin actions) aren't crazy. A ban is a really serious thing and closing such a discussion should inspire confidence that the right process happened in addition to the right result. I don't think we are there at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - what arbs said about re-opening: "If people want to reopen the ban discussion for greater input, that's a community issue." [22] "nothing in the closure of the request would prevent further community discussion" [23] "giving leave to the community to decide whether to re-open" [24] "If the community wants to reopen the ban discussion or start a new one, it can be done without our involvement." [25] "there is nothing to stop the community from re-discussing the matter or overturning the close" [26] "leave it up to the community whether they wish to reopen the ban discussion" [27] the remaining 3 votes didn't address re-opening [28] [29] [30] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose MastCell’s close was within admin discretion, Sashirolls participated and there was enough time for everyone to have their say. P-K3 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A close on false premises does not 'admin discretion' make, and particularly not on something as serious as a site-ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Sashirolls had plenty time to respond to the previous thread dozens of times, and they just kept digging themselves in deeper. Just their behavior during the discussion would be enough to justify a ban, never mind the constant battleground behavior and general unpleasantness they brought to basically every page they edited, plus the harassment that was the immediate cause of the discussion. Sashiroll's behavior in their arbitration request just confirms that they have learned nothing and will continue to cause problems if allowed back. Obviously, the correct result was reached, and that's what is important. Sashiroll can ask for a community appeal themselves if that's really what they want to do. Otherwise, this is just a pointless exercise. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  general unpleasantness they brought to basically every page they edited - Every page? Sashi's top edited page is Yellow vests movement. Is there any general unpleasantness or any disruption on that page? How about their other top pages: 2019–2020 Algerian protests, Sudanese Revolution, or François Rabelais? Actually, Sashi's conflicts are limited to a small group of pages (e.g. Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders) and editors. Case in point: the antecedent to the site ban proposal was a partial block, not even disruptive enough to merit a full block. I think you exaggerate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. "The close was within admin discretion" and "the discussion would benefit from being open longer and seeing more thoughtful input" are not mutually exclusive positions, and so I don't know why the former is being advanced as an argument against the latter. Furthermore, citing pieces of CLOSECHALLENGE out of context isn't helpful; this isn't so much about whether the close was wrong (I'm not certain it was) as that it was too soon. A site-ban discussion can always use more input, especially from uninvolved editors. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm the only one that cited CLOSECHALLENGE so far, I will clarify that nothing was cited out of context. It also does mention the aspect of the timing of the close being challenged sometimes, but my main focus was on the weight aspect many people had brought up in previous conversations before this one. Some mistakenly thought that MastCell basically ignored WP:!VOTE and basically tallied votes. There was an easier route to clarifying that wasn't the case before initiating this next step is all. It's not extremely rare for a request to the closer to add clarification to their close as part of that process. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Not much comment on the wikilegal bureaucracy this particular thread concerns, but I want to point something out: in the time since the ban went into effect and discussion began about reopening discussion and doing an arb case request, instead of being introspective or acknowledging any problems, SashiRolls has spent hundreds and hundreds of edits creating userspace pages that continue to point fingers everywhere else. Far and away the biggest reason I supported a ban is because, from what I've seen, it seems like SR is quick to turn a disagreement into a personal investigation, digging up dirt, combing through user histories, finding patterns, connecting dots in conspiracies, making lists, making winking insinuations about motives, etc. It's fundamentally incompatible with healthy interpersonal communication/collaboration here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, he did just get banned in what I think was a flawed process. That would cause a lot of people to get pretty upset and act poorly. That said, I suspect if this discussion does get reopened and he doesn't get banned it won't be long until he is unless he figures out how to behave here. If does get reopened I imagine that a lot of folks, including me, will be expecting to see evidence of improvements now. He seems to be a really productive contributor with big interpersonal skill issues (mainly a temper which also makes him really easy to troll). We've had a lot of those and most of them end up banned. But some improve. In any case, for me, it's a lot more about the process than the actual case at the moment. I'd like to see close ban discussions be taken at least as seriously a close RfA. This one wasn't IMO. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think we probably got the right result, but not in the right way. The close was made too soon - there were three discussions, all ongoing, the main one was trending toward oppose, and the user had requested a more nuanced ArbCom case where they would be able to address the concerns raised as they would be busy until the weekend (although the user had continued to comment in the thread, these do not appear to be considered posts, but quick emotional responses). The tally was vague and inaccurate - on my count there was less than 60% in favour of a ban, so not quite the 3/4 mentioned in the close. And the oppose views were not appropriately considered. I don't see a strong enough community support for a ban in that discussion. If we are to site ban this user (and it appears to me that SashiRolls is the sort of user we should be considering for a site ban because of their long history of personalising disputes with little understanding of how that impacts the individuals they are attacking and the wider community as a whole) then we should at least have the decency of allowing them to address the concerns raised, and to consider carefully the views of those in the community who feel a site ban is not appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support review. ArbCom's decline to take the case does not mean they endorse the ban, just that a review of it is not within their remit. So that outcome says nothing about numbers of chances, bites of apples, etc. The ban itself is an issue where reasonable people can disagree and have opposite opinions, and I think there has been enough challenge to the closure of the ban discussion to warrant a review of it. I think SilkTork presents the problems perfectly, just above (and that's from someone who thinks a ban is probably the right result). We are, after all, talking about a total ban for an editor who has contributed a lot of content to Wikipedia, and I think anyone in that position deserves fair treatment and to be seen to have received fair treatment. Whether one supports the ban or opposes it (for the record, I oppose it), I would hope everyone would agree that we should have a fair review process - and I'd say exactly the same about a ban that I supported. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I think MastCell's close was made in good faith, and that there's a strong argument that it was within admin discretion. But that does not mean it can not be challenged, and those who suggest otherwise do not appear to understand the basics of how Wikipedia admin actions work. All admin actions are open to challenge and review, be they good ones, bad ones, indifferent ones. All that's needed is a consensus to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I !voted at the SashiRolls' ANI to send the case to ArbCom to give them a full hearing (but did not !vote on the siteban issue), and even though ArbCom only considered MastCell's close, the 9-0 decision (and I assume ArcCom are familiar with the subject), makes me think we are at an end here. We have seen very good editors who – for various reasons – were just not compatible with editing on a collaborative project and had to leave. During the recent case, I have seen very reasonable editors like Cullen328, who advocated strongly for SashiRoll's most recent return, now !vote for their siteban. The long-term pattern is not good, and there is no evidence that it is changing. Regretfully, oppose and move on. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support review - that was not a great close at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the close was not unreasonable by Mastcell, but I think was based on a couple of premises that we might as well take the chance to clarify. If only, because satisfying more of the community that a ban issued in their name was reasonable is hardly a negative. Given some of SR's behaviour around everything, I'm actually more hostily inclined, but I view it as important to not skip a process just because it gets me the result I might want in that instance. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I supported a ban and still do however it was closed too soon for my liking, Also supporting per Hobbit and NoseBagBear. –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per my comment at ArbCom, any close can be reopened by the community and this one probably should be, given the amount of attention it has gotten and the overall view of the close (not that it was bad, just questioned, as of now). It's not an issue to open another sanction discussion keeping that in mind, with the expectation of being a minimum of 24-hour discussion per policy. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as a matter of procedure. The previous discussion was closed and closed properly. Arbcom reviewed it and agreed; so absolutely NO need to "re"-open. NOW if (and only if) SR were to request an unban, (with perhaps some considerations they'd be willing to give) and you were to say OPEN a NEW discussion - I might consider that. I know it's a silly point of order - but that's how wiki has always worked IMO. If you'd rather consider this a comment - then so be it. — Ched (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. I haven't been following the details of this saga, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with the AN close by MastCell, particularly in light of their reasoned defence of it at the ArbCom page. We promote our admins to make calls like these and unless it's completely out of left field (which with a 2:1 majority in favour of the ban doesn't seem plausible) we should accept the decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell certainly had the impression that it was 67%, which is why he closed it that way; but I have read through the discussion twice, and both times come up with a figure around 60% (59% first time, then 62% second time - some folks comments are not quite clear). I'd be interested in your own reading of the consensus tally in that discussion Amakuru. My view might be quite wrong, and it would be valuable to get a third admin opinion. SilkTork (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I was opposed to the community ban, I don't believe it is necessary for the community to re-open the discussion. I know much has been made about how "soon" the discussion was closed, but I would note it was kept open for nearly 72 hours, which certainly does more than just meet the 24-hour minimum. I also realize SR had asked for the discussion to be kept open until the weekend so they could have time to respond, but the fact that they contributed to the discussion more than 30 times (as was pointed out in the arbcom request) shows they in fact had time to respond. If Sashi wishes to be unbanned by the standard process, they are welcome to do so, but procedurally there was nothing wrong with the original discussion. Calidum 15:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I believe MastCell gave a great explanation of the close rationale, but like Dennis Brown stated, reopening will "put the matter to bed" and then we can alleviate any doubt. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As MastCell's explanation in the Arbcom thread amply demonstrates, the close was procedurally sound. Not only that, the outcome was substantively correct. There is no need for "putting the matter to bed" more than it already has been. Reopening the thread would just mean piling up a heap of pointless wikilawyering and drama. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the way to "put this to bed" is to put this to bed, not to have another discussion about it. MastCell gave a lengthy explanation for the close at the ArbCom request and I don't see that there's any new arguments or anything else which would change the outcome. Dealing with disruptive users is a timesink. Hut 8.5 17:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose definitely a close call, but within reasonable discretion to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support- When the closing admins feels it is necessary to exaggerate the level of support, that's a bad close. If you are using good judgement, there's no reason to be dishonest.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – per Ched: the previous discussion was closed within admin discretion and Arbcom reviewed it and agreed. SR is free to request a new discussion of the ban at any time. Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Rusf10. -- puddleglum^2.0 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening. There were valid concerns raised and I don't see any downside in reopening a discussion especially when it is about sitebanning a user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Rusf10 and my reasoning at the arbcase request. The ban discussion suffered from a number of major procedural issues and cannot be treated as definitive for a discussion as contentious as this one has been. CactusJack2 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I guess put me in the oppose camp, as the closer of the prior thread, but maybe that doesn't need to be said. My gut instinct is that these procedure-obsessed arguments obscure the fact that SashiRolls is fundamentally a poor fit for this project, and in some cases they're more a vehicle for people to pick a bone with me, personally, than the product of any conviction that SashiRolls is a net positive here. (That was evident in the WP:RFARB request as well). But maybe that's just my solipsism talking.

  I guess I also think that, if you look around the world today and decide that the single greatest injustice worthy of your discretionary time and outrage was the closure of the SashiRolls's community-ban discussion, then we have different sets of priorities. Partly for that reason, I don't intend to participate in further wiki-litigation on this subject, other than to say that an admin would have to be crazy, stupid, or both to volunteer to close this or subsequent discussions. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support reopening the discussion that was held here to consider banning SashiRolls. There are several important reasons why the discussion should be reopened:

1. There was not a "consensus" for banning them at the time the decision was made, and
2. The vast majority of editors here who commented in the later phases (e.g. a couple days after the discussion opened) opposed the ban.
3. El_C, who in my mind was unfairly criticized by SashiRolls, nevertheless explained that they sought "no siteban or any other additional sanction against SashiRolls."
4. SashiRolls has suggested that longstanding content disputes may be playing a role in (at least some) admin views towards them, and that probably deserves some investigation.
5. A decision to ban a longtime and productive editor should be made on the basis of largescale community support. When a discussion by editors here has turned against banning, but a decision to ban is made anyway, that decision can come across as reckless. Using very powerful administrator tools in the such a context, and closing down discussion, would not be responsible.
6. SashiRolls asked for one weekend to defend themselves, and that time was not granted. Some have written that SashiRolls' posts prior to the weekend prove no such time was needed. I find that to be an extraordinary position, and not the conclusion of an unbiased observer. First, if any of us take editing and collaboration here seriously, we know that some disputes on Wikipedia go back for many years. It is wholly legitimate that an explanation of conflict might take at the very least a weekend of research, and a few edits in the interim prove nothing otherwise. Suppose that after SashiRolls' request for more time, they had written nothing at all: could their silence have been used to ban them? With such faulty logic, any outcome no matter how unwarranted can be justified. Second, what is lost by waiting a week to ban someone? Editors were still commenting frequently, and our views are what determine consensus. Lastly, if someone asks for time when they may be banned, the least we can do is honor that request.

I apologize if I offend any admins with these comments: I understand that admin work is difficult, and that work helps, among other things, keep the vandals at bay. But for regular contributors the bar for admin action is higher, and that's particularly true when we're discussing indefinite banning. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic bans from articles based on unpaid COI, with no evidence of problematic editing?

Bnguyen1114 was the subject of an article on The Intercept recently about his edits to the Kamala Harris page. He was subsequently doxed/outed on Twitter and here. Following that, he disclosed that he has donated money to and volunteered for various politicians over the years. Based just on the fact of those COIs, SlimVirgin topic banned Bnguyen1114 from articles about all of the politicians he has volunteered for in the past "and their opponents", without evidence of any problematic editing regarding those subjects.

I find this unsettling. It may be that there's sufficient evidence provided in the Intercept piece and in the history of the various Kamala Harris pages for a tban about her, but topic banning someone from other subjects because of disclosed past unpaid volunteering, with no evidence of problematic edits of those subjects, does not seem in line with our WP:COI policy.

I'm not arguing that Bnguyen1114 doesn't have a COI, that all of his edits were good, etc. The central question here is whether it's ok to topic ban someone from several pages due not to evidence of problematic editing on those pages but to the fact of a disclosed unpaid COI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. It looks to me like Sarah acted entirely appropriately. The COI precludes the user from editing those articles, but Sarah invited them to engage the respective talk pages. El_C 15:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you cite the policy text that says that disclosing an unpaid COI disqualifies someone from editing that article? Or that sanctions should be based on possible problems rather than evidence of problems? There's a spectrum of COI, and this isn't even at the far end of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a discretionary sanction, not per the COI policy. DS gives admins pretty broad discretion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

... And the user was alerted by Barkeep on 3 July to the existence of AP2 DS, so this action looks valid under DS. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, it's right in {{uw-coi}}. El_C 15:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not, though. It provides suggested practices and says "avoid". These are indeed good practices, but it doesn't say you're prohibited from doing so, and doesn't acknowledge the spectrum of COI. By the same language, if I showed up for a day to phonebank for McCain in 1999 (I didn't), then it doesn't matter whether I've edited articles about him or how I edited them -- any admin can just come by and impose a topic ban "because DS"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right, Rhododendrites. WP:ACDS is by definition at the discretion of the enforcing admin. El_C 15:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse as I expressed a few days ago at Talk:Kamala Harris, I don't believe they were a bad faith editor or paid, but I do think their edits were problematic. In my lengthy reply at WP:COIN I noted specific diffs I believe to be problematic or attempting to remove unflattering information. Other admins like Drmies have labelled it problematic, as well. The topic ban is a DS, not per the COI policy, and I think the ban is well within admin discretion for DS, to ensure the smooth running of problematic areas. The editor in question can always appeal at WP:AE ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Per WP:COICAMPAIGN. Quite frankly, a one-week block might have been too lenient given their attempts to whitewash the Harris article. Calidum 15:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, they weren't blocked for something relating to the Harris article, they were blocked for making an edit in violation of their topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware. They both involve editing topics for which the user has a conflict of interest, however, and should not be editing. Calidum 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Rhododendrites's accusation, unsupported by a diff, that Bnguyen1114 was doxed/outed on Twitter and here (emphasis added) is false. He was doxed/outed on Twitter, including confirmation of his identity (Redacted) by Katherine Maher, chief executive officer and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and hosts Wikipedia. But he was not doxed/outed on Wikipedia. NedFausa (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

^^ This is gross. I'm not going to link to evidence of being outed obviously, and it's outrageous that people are ok with Ned repeatedly linking to tweets that dox Wikipedians while claiming with a straight face that it means Maher "confirmed his identity" (or, as Ned said on Bnguyen's talk page, "found him guilty"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly not okay. Redacted and strongly warned. What were you thinking, Ned? El_C 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I said "repeatedly" because there's another instance of the link that Ned just redacted on Bnguyen1114's talk page (but should be revdelled too), and both of these came after two other redacted edits last week on Bnguyen1114's talk page and at User talk:Katherine (WMF) (by Barkeep49 and Stwalkerster), but possibly for different reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand Rho's point and agree with the general proposition that volunteering for a political campaign should not, in and of itself, prohibit an editor from editing articles related to the candidate or their opponents. However, the devil is always in the details, and in this case, it all depends on what "volunteering" means, exactly. I'm not going to get into outing anybody but there is a difference between a person who volunteers to hold a sign on a street corner on a Saturday afternoon, and someone who volunteers, say, for a high-level leadership position within the campaign organization. In other words, there's a difference between being a "front line worker" volunteer, and being a "boss" or "executive"-level volunteer. It also matters if, for example, an editor's COI disclosures are accurate; if they're not (and I'm not saying they were or weren't in this case), but if they're not, that could be grounds for sanctions. In this particular case, putting together all the evidence, I think the TBAN was justified, and this edit definitely violated that TBAN, and so the block was justified. Still, I'd support some revisions to WP:COICAMPAIGN to clarify these issues and address the general problems Rho raises about volunteering and COI. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question What the Hell is the WMF doing doxxing Wikipedia editors? It's bad enough when Wikidemocracy does it. (waves at many off-wiki fans). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Technically, Maher responded stating that doxing Wikipedia editors is wrong, she criticised the person who did it, although simply by responding she did inadvertently bring more attention to the dox. I don't think Maher actually confirmed or denied that identity, or did any checking to see if the dox was accurate. Her only mistake was responding at all, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note the timing here. Katherine Maher, in her official capacity, publicly corroborated the off-wiki outing of Bnguyen1114 and insinuated that he was guilty of COI, nearly five full days before that charge was made at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. NedFausa (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned, she strongly warned against the doxxing, though. That's pretty key. El_C 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, she didn't. Someone on the Internet said "hey you have an editor with a COI" and she responded ~"COI is bad. so is doxing". That doesn't corroborate anything. You're repeatedly presenting this like Katherine Maher issued a statement on WMF letterhead explaining that somehow she knows the identity of Bnguyen1114 and confirms it is the person in the doxing tweet. It doesn't say that. It could be any tweet from someone saying "you have an editor with a COI" that she responded to with ~"COI is bad". It's frankly bizarre that you're repeatedly bringing up this tweet and engaging in hard core framing ("in her official capacity", "which owns and hosts Wikipedia", etc.) to make it say something it doesn't. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tweeting from her verified account, Katherine Maher decried the off-wiki doxing. But significantly, Twitter neither suspended the account she responded to nor forced deletion of that tweet, which remains online despite Twitter's strong policies against doxing. Maher is a highly experienced Twitter user, having posted 27.5K tweets since joining that platform in 2008. It's fair to presume she is familiar enough with its rules to realize that the user she chastised did not violate them. I infer that she was at minimum grandstanding, if not trying to influence the outcome of the formal on-wiki COI case, which anyone knowledgeable about Wikipedia could by then foresee was inevitable. NedFausa (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting Maher posted a tweet on July 2 to influence the outcome of the formal on-wiki COI case that was brought on July 8? Are you drunk? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On July 3, even a drunk (and I'd never accuse Katherine Maher of insobriety) acquainted with Wikipedia's internal workings could have predicted that a formal COI case would ensue from The Intercept′s exposé. When Maher tweeted "You're both wrong" she obviously meant the Twitter user she was directly addressing and the person editing Kamala Harris's Wikipedia page, whom that user had identified through simple deduction and whom The Intercept had named as Bnguyen1114. NedFausa (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So your theory is that, in order to influence an on-wiki discussion she predicted would come in the future, Maher responded to a tweet by saying that both COI and doxxing is bad? That's insane. That's patently insane.

You really should strike what you've written here about what Maher tweeted. "He was doxed/outed on Twitter, including confirmation of his identity, by Katherine Maher", "in her official capacity," "publicly corroborated", and "insinuated that he was guilty of COI" are all false accusations. These aren't matters of opinion where reasonable people disagree, these are straight-up lies. If you said these things about a fellow editor, you'd be sanctioned for it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right, Ned. You are acting below par at this time. Please make an effort to do better. El_C 17:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On July 3, Katherine Maher tweeted that the person editing Kamala Harris's Wikipedia page was "wrong." That person (Bnguyen1114) had not doxed anyone. He had edited Wikipedia. How was he "wrong" in doing so if not by violating WP:COI? NedFausa (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned, you're not getting it and you should probably withdraw. You cannot cast aspersions on Katherine Maher with various conjecture. El_C 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned's description of Maher's tweets bear no resemblance to fact. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

IP Users 74.111.2.34 and 24.177.130.98 promoting false, biased, dangerous, and unsourced information about COVID-19

On the page for Security Theater, these users have promoted information that currently poses a public health hazard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Security_theater&action=history

The revision in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Security_theater&type=revision&diff=967010122&oldid=966999876 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfax-nimbus (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)