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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	138	161
TfD	0	0	1	1	2
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	27	36
AfD	0	0	0	9	9

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 94 sockpuppet investigations
• 37 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 36 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 32 requested closures
• 72 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 33 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 7871 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Thumb Cellular 2024-06-20 04:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup final 2024-06-20 04:00 2024-06-27 04:00 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Xelia Mendes-Jones 2024-06-20 03:29 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack 2024-06-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Shadia Abu Ghazaleh 2024-06-19 19:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle of Bucha 2024-06-19 12:55 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AXXXXK 2024-06-19 08:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree J Williams 2024-06-19 04:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Writers Against the War on Gaza 2024-06-18 22:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands 2024-06-18 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 21:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case University of Texas at Austin stabbing 2024-06-18 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian sports during the 2023-2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-06-18 20:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 2024-06-18 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Noam Chomsky 2024-06-18 20:29 2024-06-21 20:29 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated Muboshgu Reaction of university donors during Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case European Union reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Akash Anand 2024-06-18 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TomStar81 TJ Monterde 2024-06-18 18:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Getalias2/core 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2508 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Getalias2 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2511 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jain temples, Pavagadh 2024-06-18 10:32 2024-07-18 10:32 edit,move Persistent vandalism Black Kite Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-16 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hashim Safi Al Din 2024-06-16 19:44 indefinite edit,move raising to ECP as requested Daniel Case Module:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II J.Williams 2024-06-16 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit J. Williams 2024-06-16 14:03 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit Naznin Khan 2024-06-16 05:30 2024-09-16 05:30 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst

Requesting RfC be re-closed

An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened re-closed.

• The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([1][2]) or MOS:WEASEL ([3]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.

• Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.

• Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([4][5]) but never got a response.

• • It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").

• • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([6][7]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([8][9]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).

Vote counts

Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.") Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below. Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..." Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE." Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS" @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous) Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE" Vice regent, said "Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views".

What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says, Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away. The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness.

VR _talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing to request to re-close.VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog." Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:

"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."

And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein ^talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re-open Re-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support work[-ing] together toward a proposal that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR _talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

• "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

  ”

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

• "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

• "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

• "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

• "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

• "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR _talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:

• SB's version misrepresenting the sources that say MEK is a cult (concern raised during RfC)
• SB's weasel wording equating scholarly sources to newspaper op-eds (raised during RfC[10]). Academic consensus is clear that MEK is a cult. Even SB admitted that no source dismisses the cult claim.

Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR _talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR _talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR _talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR _talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome — what? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.

With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.

So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your "sorry" (which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago: the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.

With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.

If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.

I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.

But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your "Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources?" (I also believe this should be taken really more seriously now). --Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:

• ”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”

• "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.

• "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."

• "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."

• "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."

The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([13][14]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.VR _talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR _talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent in response to your poins:

1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:

"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

International Policy Digest

"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."

National Interest

"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

Arab News

All three sources support "while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult", so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.

2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to what you said, this version is truely violating NPOV (explained mutliple times). Anyway, this long wall of text does not discredit the important points raised by experienced users here. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way, "(one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented". LOL! Is it what you understand from NPOV? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have asked the discussion get closed. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Since the Arab News was used as a source for the text proposed in this RfC, users might be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arab_News_reliable_on_the_People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran?.VR _talk 14:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• There are two important discussions regarding the super-trim RFCs (like the one that is the topic of debate here). You can find them "New restriction proposal" and "Confused". The OP of the RFC has promised to avoid opening such super trim discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Simon nepali, repeated unsourced editing

Simon nepali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated unsourced and disruptive editing. Gave him a warning but he vowed to continue and also seems to be a bigot. Unsourced and/or targeted misinformation in

• Province No. 1
• Bagmati Province
• Gandaki Province
• Lumbini Province

SimulationWig (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Simon nepali, you are this close to an immediate indefinite block for disruptive editing, including the comments on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Simon nepali should be banned. The user is still continuing to vanadalize the pages mentioned above. SimulationWig (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Still happening at Bagmati Province. He needs a wake-up block at a minimum. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I put a warning on their talk. Let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

The Committee has received word that Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) has passed away. Accordingly, the currently open case is dismissed. We would like to express our heartfelt condolences to the family of Flyer22.

Passed 9 to 0 on 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

User:Flyer22 Frozen userrights

No. Just no. (See also: User_talk:GZWDer#Lacking_very_basic_sense) El_C 11:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See above, please remove rollbacker and reviewer.--GZWDer (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC) We generally do not remove rights from users unless it is by request or they were an administrator. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @Primefac: See Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines#On the account: "any advanced user rights of deceased Wikipedians should be removed immediately".--GZWDer (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Right, that was what I meant in my or they were an administrator statement. Neither of those are advanced user rights. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC) That is an incomplete rendering, to the point I'm not sure why you're pushing this. The policy goes on to say "User rights to be removed primarily include template editor, edit filter manager and helper, administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser, and oversight, as these rights have the most potential to disrupt the project." —valereee (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC) The account is locked. It literally cannot login, never mind use any rights. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

Hello, I came across an article about Nima Behnoud, I found a lot of bogus in that article and came across a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with the name of User:Mode iranain, that added a lot of untrue claims. I think ALL of his edits need to be undo. --Gnosis (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Gnosis I cleaned up the article a bit and nominated it under AFD. BTW this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. Do have a look at the article for more info. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Block review: Wilkja19

• Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Wilkja19_marking_all_edits_as_minor
• User_talk:Wilkja19#Complete_lack_of_communication

Wilkja19 is a regular editor of 3 years consistent activity with 3,368 edits, who makes mostly good edits on TV articles. In mid-December, they were reported to ANI for marking edits as minor (which is a totally useless software feature and should be removed; the only time I see it mentioned is when it's used to block editors). After discussing the technical limitations the editor faces (namely, using a crappily designed iOS app which gives zero notifications about talk messages - see T263943 + others), and an issue EEng raised regarding the minor edits, there appears to have been community consensus at ANI and VPT to do nothing about this particular issue with this particular editor, including regarding the idealistic "communication" concern, until and unless they actually start making disruptive edits, which the blocking admin has admitted they do not. Due to the unfortunate nature of the iOS app, it's possible they only see "You have been blocked." with no explanation, at the moment.

Nevertheless, a month later, on request, EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to reblock Wilkja19 for the same reason, despite the community consensus against doing so. The blocking admin has declined to reconsider, giving an essay as their reasoning and comparing this editor to an unapproved bot, which (given their editing nature and patterns) they obviously are not.

I hope this block is quickly reversed, before this good editor decides to give up on Wikipedia after multiple arbitrary "You have been blocked" messages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If they're not making mistakes, who cares? Let them mark all edits as minor and let them not use edit summaries. It may not be ideal, but if they're otherwise productive, why not be flexible? Like making sure there's a notice at the top of their talk page instructing users with urgent communication that they should contact an administrator to block them for a day or two, with the block log entry linking to the respective discussion. Obviously, that will only work if the need to communicate with them happens once in a blue moon. Maybe worth a try, though...? El_C 12:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, drive by comment but I think @ProcrastinatingReader: mentioned they might not see the full block message? If thats the case your solution would lead to an editor who from their perspective just occasionally gets blocked for no good reason. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I stand corrected. That is, indeed, a conundrum, then. El_C 12:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly the phab task says: Conclusion: Using the app is like being inside a bubble, without contacts with the exterior. It's no wonder there's so much people complaining here that using the app caused their Wikipedia account to be blocked, for reasons they don't understand.

I wonder how many editors are in the same situation but nobody has noticed yet because there was no real need for admin action on the nature of their edits (as there isn't here). Not a fan of ideological blocks, rather than realised issues. The editor doesn't edit in controversial areas or on high-profile articles anyway, nor do they edit war on (uncommon) reverted changes it seems, which puts them in a good spot for flexibility. No disruption => no block. As an aside, I don't see this case as being particularly distinct to an avg IP editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Since our Notifications system doesn't work with this stupid software, is there a way that we could automatically display the OBOD for people that are using it, as we do for IPs and as we used to do for everyone? Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I operate under the assumption that the average IP is able to see the block log entry (wherefrom a discussion can be linked) when they attempt to edit while blocked. This case is different. There simply appears to be zero means through which to WP:COMMUNICATE with this user (whatsoever). I guess it's possible that they could edit without incident, even without ever providing edit summaries and only marking edits minor minor (a separate matter on its own), but it probably isn't feasible or realistic to expect that to work long-term. El_C 15:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

They’ve managed it for 3 years, we can extend some good faith that such continues, right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, oh, I see (again) — me not doing my due diligence seems to be the order of the day.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Well, there you go. I guess that shows me. Anyway, that reasoning works for me. El_C 18:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little late, and maybe I'm missing something, but why are we still doing stuff under an assumption of 'might'? Personally I support a block of this mildly disruptive editor, as long as it's a 'might'. And yes, this editor is disruptive even if only mildly and they unfortunately aren't aware of it. There is a reason why an editor who does communicate and refuses to stop marking 4200 byte removals as minor would be blocked. If no one is willing to test it, then I don't see why we should assume that they don't see the full block log. If someone had actually tested it and found they didn't see full block log then I'd probably change my mind. After all, we know IP editors using the mobile site also don't see any indication of messages, but if I understand El C correctly they do see the full block log for their block. As is stands, this editor has be blocked for such short times we have no idea if they have ever even noticed they've been blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive (not even mildly) about marking 4200 byte removals as minor. Minor is a useless software feature which has no purpose except an "m" next to the edit in history. No experienced editor seriously uses someone's own determinations of "minor" to filter edits out of their watchlist. (+ Help:Minor edit is not a PAG). Imagine if marking as minor was all it took to get vandal edits through RC! Anyone who actually thinks about the feature, rather than just thinking "procedure => block", could never come to the conclusion that it's disruptive in the slightest.

Besides, some people will dispute even legitimately minor edits, so nothing is really "indisputable". The only time minor is really relevant is when it's used as a poor excuse to block people - that practice should stop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Editors are entitled to ask that their fellow editors use features reasonably. If you find the minor flag useless, that's you fucking choice. Just as it should be other's fucking choice to use the flag. It's utterly disgusting that you would try to harm other editors by refusing to allow them to use the features present by riding roughshod over community consensus over how they should be used. People like you who feel they can demand how others edit here are what make Wikipedia a terrible place. The fact that there will be dispute over the borderline doesn't change the fact there are certain edits which are clearly not minor. Note there is no requirement to use the minor flag. If editors don't want to mark their edits as minor they're fully entitled. All they're asked to do is to not mark edits as minor when they clearly don't remotely qualify, which is a reasonable ask. If editors can't follow that reasonable ask, then yes they don't fucking belong. In this case, since there's apparently no way to tell the editor, then yes, there's no choice but to let them be. Again that's reasonable. What remains utterly disgusting is you telling people who do wish to use the minor flag to fuck off because if your dislike of the flag. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't tell anyone to "fuck off". That is incorrect reasoning. Logically, then, it's also a user's choice what they find to be "minor". The feature is not consensus anyway (it's forced upon by the devs, and for 2020 it's archaic), nor are WP:INFOPAGES consensus: information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. There is no evidence anyone seriously uses it to filter out edits in the first place. Equally, I'm not telling anyone how to edit here, rather the opposite: I'm arguing that the idiosyncrasies of some shouldn't get another editor blocked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Actually while writing the reply below, I recalled seeing someone ask to be blocked to test the iOS app. So I looked more carefully and found Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 186#Notification to iOS app user which confirms the iOS app doesn't seem to show any info other than the editor is blocked. While I guess you could technically argue it's still "might" since we don't know what will happen for this particular editor or if it's changed since then, but IMO it's better to say "very likely" or even "almost definitely" or just indicate this is what it was like when tested. With this important clarification, I too support leaving them unblocked for now, as long as their disruption is, no pun intended, minor i.e. they're only incorrectly marking edits as minor. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked. When you block someone and the community says "unblock because this isn't wrong", you don't get to block again for an identical reason. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nyttend, you write in the block entry that the first block was overturned at ANI, but blocking admin reimposed it. But it having been "overturned" isn't immediately clear to me, though admittedly, my reading comprehension is not at top peak right now. (Also noting that, technically, the original 24-hour block simply expired in the course of that discussion.) El_C 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I'll reblock him for 1 second to say "I was wrong" and to say that I still believe the unblock justified on grounds of "this person did nothing wrong". Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose it is either technically or politically impossible to disable the ability to edit en.wiki from the WMF's iOS app? What an utterly stupid situation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the drama over 'sign in to edit', I'm pretty sure the second of those would make it a never thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    I'm pretty sure that the community's views have shifted, perhaps not all the way to consensus to do it but at least some of the way, in light of the IP masking initiative. I know mine have and I've seen others write similarly. Whether that would extend to this use case I dare not speculate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    • As I distinctly recall, the community's views weren't the issue. The community was overwhelmingly in favor of SITE. The Foundation lolnoped it with, IIRC, phrasing that was basically 'don't darken our door with this idea again or else'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

      Except I believe ptwiki hasn't been overruled by the office. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

      If we wanted to try and block IP editors on sight, it would make sense to start with those who exclusively use the mobile site since they suffer the same properly i.e. no indication of new messages. As I understand it, we don't even know if blocking is any different between iOS editors and IP editors on the mobile site since no one has actually tested what they see when they're blocked, we're just operating under the assumption of what 'might' happen. (Actually I'm sure I recall someone asking to be blocked to test the iOS app so I'm surprised we don't know.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

      Seems I was right. It was tested before and the iOS app does only show the editor is blocked without the full log entry for their block. I assume El C is right that the mobile website is better? Actually I guess I could trivially test that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

      Okay I tested it in Tor, and can confirm the mobile site does show the block log. When you try to edit, there is a "Your IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia" message and below that a "See more". Clicking on the see more will show the details e.g. "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider."

      I will give one final comment which is that there's a reason I harp on about IP's editing from the mobile site all the time. This is IMO a major flaw in the mobile site. But cases like this in particular suggest IMO one of the areas we treat editors with an account different from those editing from an IP. I'm fairly sure I've seen IP editors with very minor fairly inconsequential misbehaviour blocked even though they edited exclusively from the mobile site and never used their talk page and are probably completely unaware of their new messages.

      Indeed I'm fairly sure there are a bunch of admins who aren't even aware of this flaw in the mobile site, I'm not an admin but I never came across it on AN//I etc until IIRC about 1 year ago. Actually one time I raised the issue, someone just said 'don't use the mobile site', but how is that a solution to the problem of those who do? (I do occasionally, but never as an IP so the flaw is irrelevant to me.)

      Okay they do see the block log but AFAICT, until now this thread and indeed the previous one has been mostly based on assumptions of what they might see, and not the test showing they don't see the block log. IIRC, the one or two times I've seen the issued of IP editors not any sign of new messages raised, no one mentioned that IP editors of the mobile site do see the block log.

      And yeah for all this selfish talk about how clear misuse of the minor flag doesn't matter because some editors don't like the flag, I'm confident if this had been an IP editor they probably would have suffered many long blocks by now, with few caring they're in nearly the exact same situation. (I'm putting aside the block log issue given my point about how uncertain it was. But it'll accept that the only real way someone could keep marking edits as minor from an IP on the mobile site would be to intentionally tick the box or have some weird browser plugin, perhaps an accessibility one.)

      I think I'll leave this thread with that given how angry it's made me.

      Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

      Nil Einne, just a note — your minor-edits-by-an-IP scenario isn't technically possible, since one can't mark edits as minor without being logged in. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

      About IP editors more generally however, T240889 is interesting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Continuously marking all edits as minor even when they are not is disruptive editing. Its specifically called out in WP:VAND as a tactic to look out for when it comes to vandalism. The problem is when someone does it, and the edits are *not* minor, and they are *not* vandalism, is that they either will be ignored by those who arnt looking at minor edits (this may include also include bots) and so the content wont be reviewed, or they will be looked at more closely by those who are familiar with how vandals operate - making more work for others than just by editing normally. The solution is to get the editor to stop marking all their edits as minor, not ignore it and let it continue. Because once this discussion disappears into the archive, the next time someone complains about it they will risk getting blocked again. If this is a specific issue to an individual editors use of particularly technology, this is their problem that needs to be solved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Continuously marking all edits as minor even when they are not is disruptive editing. Its specifically called out in WP:V as a tactic to look out for when it comes to vandalism. I presume you meant WP:VAND (as WP:V does not mention minor edits). Here is what WP:VAND has to say about minor edits, in both instances where it is mentioned. Are you referring to something else?:

  • Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by causing bad faith edits to go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists Neither of which applies here, as they are obviously not bad faith edits, and they're obviously not a bad faith edit followed by a minor edit to obscure it. Obviously no gaming going on here.
  • The edit summary is important in that it helps other editors understand the purpose of your edit. Though its use is not required, it is strongly recommended, even for minor edits, and is considered proper Wikipedia etiquette. Even a brief edit summary is better than none. However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism. -- self explanatory ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that in order to determine they arnt bad faith, you actually have to look at them. Which you likely wouldnt have, if they hadnt been marked as minor. You cant tell there isnt any gaming going on without again, looking closely at them. Its the act of forcing other editors into doing more work than they otherwise would have that is the disruptive part, not the actual edit itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If people ignore edits just because the editor decided to mark them as minor, it would be very easy to get away with vandalism on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

So when I say it makes more work for others checking minor edits, your response is they should be checking all minor edits anyway? Glad you have a healthy respect for your fellow editors free time. Feel free to go propose a change to WP:VAND then, or attempt to get the WMF to remove the minor edit function. I look forward to your success. Marking edits continuously as minor aside, they also have zero communication with other editors, on their talk page, or article talkpages. That is not acceptable. They are required to interact with other editors. If the issue was not about minor edits, but some other problem, and they refused to respond over an extended period of time, they would end up blocked. Plenty of examples in the archives for you to look at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the point of the gaming section is that minor edits deserve equal, if not more, scrutiny, because vandals often mark as minor to obscure the real nature of their edit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of having a "minor edit" designation in the first place? If the point is that I'm supposed to ignore "m" edits on my watchlist, well I'm not going to do that, because "m" edits can be as wrong, disruptive, or destructive as a "major" edit. Now if an editor with whose editing I am familiar, and whom I find trustworthy, puts "typo" or something similar in the edit summary, I'm going to probably skip looking at that edit, but not someone I don't know. The whole purpose of a watchlist is to watch the articles on it and prevent them from damage, and the "m" marking just doesn't enter into it at all. I think it's a worthless designation and should be scrapped as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And even if the "m" designation is kept, the "Mark all edits as minor" preference is entirely counter-productive and should be eliminated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it has been eliminated but might still active for some accounts. See phab:T26313. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I'm behind the times. Considering what "the times" have been like lately, not necessary a bad thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

John C. Eastman BLP

I invite an administrator to examine the current activity of User:Jeastman on John C. Eastman soibangla (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• He was warned previously about that (and looking at the edit, the information he removed is well sourced). Partial blocked from the article. He can still use the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Is there a reason why Jeastman, who is editing John C. Eastman, and who at least based on this seems to be therefore be indicating they claim to be Eastman, isn't a {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}} case? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe they have identified themselves through UTRS. Let me see if I can find it. Black Kite (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Mmm. Can't find anything, not sure why I thought that. They've been editing the page for ten years with personal info, so I strongly suspect they are, but I suppose technically you are correct. They've posted an unblock request, btw. Black Kite (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I've delined the unblock request. Says "new to this" yet was warned about COI more than five years ago. He can use the talk page to challenge inaccuracies and suggest improvements. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Considering everything (and more caffinated than I was last night), at this point given 'time in service' I probably wouldn't block for that as such, but if a full block occurs for any other reason I wouldn't unblock without a UTRS ticket. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
          • OTRS, not UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
            • It's one of those TRSes! Thanks. I've dropped a note based on the -wellknown template on their page; if it needs refinement by all means please do so. Probably don't need a full template for Twinkle for this since I can't see "-wellknown, but not blocked" happening TOO often... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Britannica blacklisted?

I just tried to link to a Britannica search result, to illustrate usage of a particular term, and was prevented from doing so by the spam blacklist. Why? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the link was https://www.britannica.com/search?query=British+Empire. The error-message says "it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." I don't see it at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but I do see it at meta:Spam blacklist. So thanks for finding something that should be adjusted in MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. DMacks (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks: I have updated the text to Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist (wikilink'd). We may also want to consider the addition of a link to https://searchsbl.toolforge.org/index.pl?userdeflang=en&userdefproj=w so people can run a search. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks! I did not know about that other tool--it fills a need I occasionally have. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

WAG-ing, it'd be because back in the day people tried to use Britannica as a reference a lot, and as it's an encyclopedia itself, that's a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Added 7 September 2018 by User:Billinghurst, pointing to this comment as being spambot'ed. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know what WAG-ing means. Many articles use Britannica links for references, it appears to be only search results that are blacklisted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

See last entry at WAG#Other uses. DMacks (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with The Bushranger's point about not using Britannica as a source... Its articles are curated, reviewed and published, so not sure what would be inadmissible about that. It's a tertiary source rather than a primary or secondary, but I've never heard of that being disallowed and I do cite it myself sometimes in conjunction with other things. So that's news to me, but happy to be corrected. Re the OP question, I think linking to a page of Britannica search results rather than a particular page, is more questionable. Sounds like OR if nobody else has published coverage of that set of search results before... I haven't looked into the precise context though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Surely we encourage citing encycopedias and discourage citing primary sources (but people cite them anyway). I guess this is the search which is a problem here, not the Britannica itself.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) The context is a discussion on a talk page about the capitalisation of "British Empire". I wanted to shew what another well-known encyclopaedia does. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest that it is just the search that is blocked,and not the articles themselves such as this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above it appears to be only search results. I didn't want to link to each usage of "British Empire" in Britannica, but I did want to shew it being used in a variety of contexts. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Only search results are blacklisted as they are (prolific) spam targets by spambots across all our wikis where the bots have some legitimate links among the spam, presumably as a credibility attempt. If you want to give them a link, then just nowiki the link and tell them to search it, that it is not active should not matter for your use. Oh also noting that general search results in citations are problematic; compared to specific direct citation links.— billinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I ran into this recently while updating Module:Biglist. You can see what I did to make a search link work, based on the source template, Template:Search. --Izno (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: There is your answer {{search|British Empire|long=y}} (

• wp
• gwp
• g
• bwp
• b |
• eb
• co
• gct
• sw
• arc
• ht

) and point them at the "eb" link. Or just copy the "eb" link and use that alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • @Amakuru: I know of one entry where a persistent sock got their fringe view added to a Britannica article. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Like The Bushranger I had always thought that using another encyclopaedia was frowned upon, even though I do sometimes use them as references. But I see that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh, well then I suppose I sit corrected! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it may have been something Jimbo said. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP for Evelynkwapong539

The user history of this IP address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.25.166.100 seems very similar in tone to User:Evelynkwapong539, who has sock puppeted twice as User:Kof4490 and User:Memeacus. Just thought I'd bring this to light since they've been a constant editor over at Looney Tunes Cartoons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002199701 <-- This edit inn particular gave me a threat, which I know is definitely not allowed here.

Noelephant (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This behavior suggests possible block evasion by User:Evelynkwapong539. Noticing their extensive filter log, removal of references and personal attacks in edit summaries I've blocked for one month. Also semiprotected two of the affected articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Backlog

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Moxy 🍁 09:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ongoing_issues_with_PragerU_page

On 7 January, Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning a multi-part dispute about PragerU. The arbitrators and others expressed the opinion that this was a content dispute, and that content dispute resolution remedies had not been exhausted. I offered to attempt to moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. ArbCom then dismissed the request for arbitration, and Noteduck filed a request for dispute resolution at DRN. This is a report on that dispute resolution. After discussion, I determined that the filing party wished to add six paragraphs to the article, and that the other parties disagreed with the additions. One of the other editors has expressed a concern that the sources are unreliable. I determined that a Request for Comments was in order. I have stated that the parties should discuss reliability of the sources in the RFC, and the community can resolve the question of reliability of the sources. Concerns were expressed about editor behavior; I collapsed those concerns, because DRN is a content forum, and resolution of content issues often ameliorates behavioral issues.

A Request for Comments with six parts has now been posted at Talk:PragerU at [[15]], and should run for thirty days. I think that none of the editors are entirely happy, and that none of the editors are entirely unhappy, and that is a satisfactory result. The RFC should then be closed by an experienced uninvolved editor. Any arbitrators or administrators can watch the RFC. I think that this should satisfy the ArbCom.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't pity whomever is tasked with closing this 28K monster RfC! Kudos, Robert McClenon, for drafting it. That is quite a feat. Though I worry that each disparate part could end up derailing the request, at the same time, with proper monitoring (not volunteering!), there's no reason why it can't be kept fairly coherent and cohesive. El_C 16:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be capable of being closed as six separate RFCs. Most of the work that I did in mediating consisted of telling the participants to Be Specific at DRN so that it could be organized into chunks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't promise I'll be around to monitor it, but I can volunteer to close when the time comes. I'll add it to my calendar, but feel free to ping me when the time comes as well. Thanks Robert for your work on this! — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Two cents: There is a problem here, as I see it, in that we have an RfC (or group of RfCs) which are all yes/no questions regarding the inclusion of specific language/sourcing... but with language/sourcing that leave something to be desired. Meanwhile, the underlying material and gist of the claims are largely WP:DUE. So we're likely to wind up with mostly "no consensus, default to exclusion" sort of results, which will make it harder to include the underlying material with more appropriate language/sourcing, or a messy "consensus to include these claims, but not with this language [or with reduced language]." I suppose that's ok, even if it means a ton more discussion afterwards, with no guarantee of resolution, but not ideal. Regardless, this page (which I've only just come across the other day), does look like it could use more attention from uninvolved editors, as there are a lot of problematic arguments (and sources) being thrown around. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism targeting relatively novel RM method

The offending post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&type=revision&diff=1002760949&oldid=1002760426

^ prior diff (the original post): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&type=revision&diff=1002511010&oldid=1002510721

Involved user: Chrisahn

This is the third or fourth time this user posts negativist comments under the heading of a technical section where comments are not meant to be posted. The user is opposed to the table tally method but instead of participating in the relevant meta-discussion where his concerns could be met with counterarguments or conceded to, he repeatedly targets this area and will not accept that, like everyone else's, his voice in matters of process belongs below the table. He appears to want to sow distrust in the process, instead of making it better. :"No consensus on the table" is a red herring. There needs not be prior consensus for every technical point of process. Rationale for the table is WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, and there are precedents for it's usage. Many administrators have seen the table and put their names in. This sort of discontent and obstruction is only coming from him, but there is a tendency for other people to reply in that area. Apart for this problem the RM is working just fine.

Proposed soluton: discretionary sanction to affirm that users shall not add comments in the area between the table section heading and the table itself, and that the content of this area is not to be changed. — Alalch Emis 23:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Additon: my comment preceding his can be deleted (update: now deleted). I only put it in to appease him and make him stop this subtle form of vandalism, but he latches onto the technicality of me posting there to post there himself. The original form of the instruction was just the first paragraph by Octoberwoodland. It might as well be that that was the best look for this area. — Alalch Emis 23:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the rationale for my post in the abovementioned area. These extra instructions (update: now deleted) were an attempt to constructively react to his earlier post, same as the offending post above. — Alalch Emis 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think users should never add others' names to the table. Your instructions explain how and when to add others' names. That's rather the opposite of my intention and thus not very constructive. More details in my response to that rationale. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I added at the top of that table (below Alalch's stuff): "Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely."

Here's what others have said about that table: Berchanhimez wrote: "the table could potentially be manipulated by someone who wants to show more/less support/opposition for something, because I don't think most people are going to be checking, and many may not even add their name to begin with." VQuakr wrote: "We have a table that represents a mix of votes and user names added to sections against their wishes. It should be tossed because it is not and will not be usable for anything." Somedifferentstuff wrote: "the fact that names were added to the table by other users is hilariously depressing." Robertiki wrote: "This table should me removed, because it implies that we have a vote instead of striving to reach a consensus."

I think Alalch didn't realize that this table idea in general and adding others' names in particular was rather contested, and that such voting tables are usually not what we do. I had previously suggested that Alalch shift down a gear and remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but I obviously failed to get through. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It was (past tense, doesn't seem actively contested anymore except by you) contested but it was discussed. What you fail to understand that the way forward is not obstruction and sowing of distrust but continuing the discussion using logical arguments. — Alalch Emis 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And, this is only half-true: (below Alalch's stuff) – that's what you added below Octoberwoodland's (or whomever that originated from, he might as well have copied it as an informal template) instructions, and only then I added my "stuff" with the best of intentions, but then you readded your disruptive comment. I can only blame myself for naively trying to appease in a slightly unconventional way; should have known that that circumstance would later be turned against me. — Alalch Emis 02:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What I meant is simply that I added my stuff below your stuff (to which Octoberwoodland had added your signature). — Chrisahn (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your first comment of this sort (diff) was below the actual Octoberwoodland's unsigned post, so it was when the table section was in a "vanilla" state. This is what I refer to. It was your reaction to you removing a user from the table, and me readding them. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: you should carefully read WP:VANDNOT and the instructions in the header at WP:ANI before posting to AN or ANI again. Basically any form of dispute resolution would be preferable here, and a sanction for someone not following your instructions on where you think they should post to a talk page is obviously not going to happen. VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't take that advice, thanks. I'll only take the resolution of this issue by an acting admin. Those instructions (update: now deleted) aren't my original invention but a paraphrase of the outcome of existing relevant discussion, and I only added them as attempt to appease Chrisahn. I can remove those instructions (update: now deleted) any time (not Octoberwoodland's, those are the part of the default setup taht was used before and is backed by precedent) but the problem of Chrisahn's subtle form of vandalism remains. The instructions are literally there (update: now deleted) to ameliorate Chrisahn's negativist attitude, and as soon as he stops unilaterally posting there, everyone else will stop too. — Alalch Emis 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:VANDNOT Chrisahn's behavior is analogous to template vandalism except we are not dealing with a formal template but a precedent-based tally method, an informal template of sorts, that might as well become a formal entity. — Alalch Emis 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Mmkay. That's unfortunate since admins don't hold a monopoly on good advice, and you are way off base here - to the extent that future you is going to look back on this with embarrassment. You are also slipping into WP:BOOMERANG territory with this violation of WP:POINT. The best thing you can do for that discussion page now is to stop attempting to moderate it. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is to stop burdening the administrator's noticeboard with irrelevant text in the form of undue opinion and repeated unsolicited advice. Become an administrator then we'll talk here. You have no standing. — Alalch Emis 02:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. I propose we block Alalch Emis per NOTHERE. Let them go elsewhere to fight whatever their fight is. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposed solution above is much simpler, I shan't reapeat it. Just protect a two inch area of the talk page. Easier than blocking me. :) — Alalch Emis 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And I posted this here because it has to do with a relatively novel RM tally that everyone seems to embrace, administrators !voting included, but it's highly vulnerable to obstruction of this type. It just needs a smidge of formality to become fairly robust, now and for the future. It's a great shame that it should fail only because the area between the heading and the table gets inundated with negativist comments. — Alalch Emis 03:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I think that would be excessive. Until about two days ago, my interaction with Alalch was fine. We disagreed on some things, but that wasn't a big deal. So far, all of Alalch's contributions are advocacy for renaming that article to "insurrection", but I hope Alalch might be motivated to be productive in other areas in the future as well. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Chrisahn, I appreciate you keeping your cool. (You too, VQuakr.) But what we have here is an editor who does one thing, one thing only, and in order to do it has to rub everyone else the wrong way, create an unworkable mess of that talk page where no one can see the forest for the trees, and then they have to start accusing others of vandalism. I don't want editors to have to put up with that. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Chrisahn I haven't in any particular way advocated for "insurrection" since the closure of the previous RM, except a simple !vote in the current RM. Maybe mentioned somewhere else in the talkpage recently but not as advocacy. Thanks Chrisahn, I'll definitely seek inspiration for other endeavors, but currently this isn't about me. I'm sure we'll interact just fine in the future. I don't want to bludgeon this convo but you can probably attest that the mess Drmies talks about is inherent to that page, and what I've done with regard to the ongoing RM and the table (I didn't put it there) is just tidying up the subsections. And I conscientiously reported this issue on this very noticeboard which was acted on. No one said then I was "moderating". As for my past participation on this website, it was fine and no one complained. — Alalch Emis 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have started a talk in Alalch Emis personal page, but after reading his answer and the present exchange, I have some doubts. Here is his edit couht, with 269 edits in the Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. --Robertiki (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You can boomerang me and gaslight me with vague unsubstantiated accusations of past misdeeds (like esteemed Drmies did) as much as you like, pronounce me a SPA, no problem, but everything I've said here is rock solid truth, and the right solution for that RM is the one I proposed, simply protecting the fragile process involving a novel method of tallying from obstruction. Nothing about me can change that simple truth. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: You're right, it's no longer about "insurrection". I struck that from my comment. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Meh. It's a busy talk page and a high edit count there, by itself, isn't indicative of a problem IMHO. There's a nonchalance that's developed on that particular talk page to refactoring, collapsing, and moving others' comments that I find concerning. Alalch has been part of that, but I'm not sure they're the main part (and they're certainly not the only one doing it). The accusation of vandalism and the weird obsession with janitors as authority figures are concerning developments. Maybe a bright-line restriction against modifying or moving others' comments and a reminder from someone with the buttons that the admin logo is a mop not a badge? VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe they'll double down to prove further patience would be wasted. VQuakr (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

An administrator can tell apart a punitive (not the subject of my request) from a protective sanction (the subject of my request), which you can't apparently. That's why you can't identify a "cunning" personal attack, which is the post I'm replying to, and I'm doing so in the most neutral way possible. One day perhaps, one day... — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Alach Emis: Your behavior on the Capitol storming talk page is verging on WP:OWN. You seem to want to control everything. Please back off from trying to run the whole discussion, and moving and hiding discussions you don't like and that don't fit your narrative. It's off-putting and counterproductive to your ultimate goal. Moncrief (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm (hopefully only this one time) posting on AN(i) to comment the following: I think this whole debacle was started by the following: A user (or users, I'm not particularly sure) in good faith created a table to provide a "straw poll" for RM outcomes based on the RM. That's all fine and dandy - nobody should have a problem with its creation. Myself, and a few other users, pointed out some potential problems with the table and RM - namely that a table wasn't particularly necessary or useful for this particular RM (not saying they're never useful), as well as the fact that the table and discussion allowed multiple (at least a half dozen) users to advocate for names involving "insurrection" - which per the discretionary sanction are prohibited from being discussed for 1 month following the failed RM from a while ago. It pains me that no administrator has stepped in to enforce that validly placed DS which enacted a moratorium on "insurrection" discussion - but that is beyond the point now. I believe the table is not useful and is potentially harmful in that anyone can edit it, and editors who came to opine and provide their commentary may unwillingly have their names added in areas they did not intend. That being said, I think this whole thing has spiraled way out of control. There are users who are in good faith attempting to clarify the table as potentially inaccurate and/or encourage users not to add other users - who are being reverted. There has been a large amount of discussion over the table issue which has been collapsed on the talk page. The table itself still has names of users being added/changed apparently without their consent (and in some cases explicitly against their wishes), which should not be allowed (at least if they've expressed a desire not to be added). My view of the situation is that the best way to resolve it is to simply trout anyone who's "gone too far", and to add a note that the table should only be added to by the user themselves, or at a minimum that users requests to not be added be respected. I further think that if the table is allowed to stand, a requirement to ping editors in the edit summary of your edit when adding/removing/changing their place in the table should be enacted. This would enable users to "verify" their name being added/changed by others (assuming they have pings enabled). TLDR: The DS enacted was great, but to be honest, the fact that more admins have not been enforcing that DS and/or helping guide this RM discussion, while it's obvious many are watching the page, is what caused this debacle. I do not intend to comment here further unless it is absolutely necessary. Please communicate with me on my talk page if further commentary from me is absolutely necessary. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I've been monitoring that page a bit (diffdiff), but am finding it quite difficult to follow at this time. El_C 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies and others: I've changed my mind. I think blocking Alalch for a day or two would be reasonable. Although several users here and elsewhere tried to explain why it's problematic, Alalch keeps policing that supposedly "off limits" area, and many of Alalch's interactions with others have been rather confrontational for several days now. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: I've recently been blocked for 30 hours myself (by Drmies, actually) for my actions on that same talk page. The fundamental reason was that I was angry about another user's actions, and my activities expressed that anger. The block helped me (and maybe the other user as well) cool down, and in the end we arrived at a reasonable compromise. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, I was very happy to unblock you. I see that El C left a warning; I hope that suffices but I'm about to have a look. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I've only had a glance at the latest. If your investigation prompts you to impose sanctions, please do not feel obliged to consult me further, or be dissuaded by my warning — its narrow scope is what it is. El_C 18:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C but I got nothing to report. Let's hope it stays that way. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Warned Alalch Emis to cease from imposing and overstepping (diff). El_C 16:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand the warning and don't contend. The situation with the area between the heading and table remains bad. I've stated my case here and have moved on. I will respond to potential calls of others to improve my input to that page but won't do anything out of the most ordinary on my own initiative. P.S. Administrator Drmies resorts to gaslighting (vague unsubstantiated accusations first, looking for evidence later) in lack of a better idea what to do. Worth noting, for posterity. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple failed attempts

have been made on my account. I wish them l luck. Will check my contribs and change to be safe. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I got one yesterday, too. Though I get them with some regularity, it's usually no more than once every month or two, so that is an odd happenstance. El_C 15:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have a secure password, there's no need to change it. A safe password will have megagigabazillions of possibilities, so who cares if someone's tried five or six of them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That is, indeed, the right way to look at it. El_C 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You could ask the person trying to compromise your account for a list of the passwords they've tried, then change your password to one of those! Extra-secure, since you know they won't try that password again. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But what if someone else repeats that same string at some point in the future? Kaboom! El_C 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Enabling 2FA will help prevent unauthorized access, as well. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And help prevent authorized access also, User:Nihonjoe, e.g. when I lose, or lose sight of, the complex and baffling accessories belonging to 2FA and am unable to log in. It's happened to more tech-savvy admins than me. Just get yourselves a properly strong password and don't use it anywhere else, people. That's what I think of 2FA. Bishonen | tålk 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: You can use web-based tools like 1Password so it's not limited to a single device. As long as you can access 1P, you'd be able to use the 2FA. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As before, if one has a long, random password, their account will not be lost to bruteforce. Don’t make a password based on things close to you (ie the name of your pet), don’t reuse passwords across multiple sites, don’t use a single word as a password (or something else basic). Long and random characters, or multiple random words in series, and the password will never be lost to bruteforce. Changing ones password just because someone decided to guess doesn’t really help. There’s 62 alphanumeric characters (both cases), excluding symbols (which could also be used). That’s already 5.9 * 10^53 possible combinations (for a 30 char password) via bruteforce. It’s just not happening.

I suspect whoever is guessing passwords is either guessing a “common passwords list” in hopes of something sticking (it usually does, since most people have awful security), or just doing it because they like the attention of frequent login attempt sections. Probably both. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Heh. If the would-be password crackers are reading: my password is absolutely, positively un-guessable, so short of telepathy, you stand zero chance and are simply wasting your time. El_C 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• The complexity of a password is no defense. If it is intercepted in transit, or from one of the endpoints (your computer or any website where it has been used), your privacy is at risk. We must stop using shared secrets entirely. User authentication should be done with a public-private key pair or a password protocol that uses a zero knowledge proof to avoid transmitting the password. Some examples include SRP protocol and Schnorr NIZK. Jehochman ^Talk 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's generally encrypted in transit. And encrypted at rest on the endpoint website (at storage time anyway, not at verification). User authentication across software in general could do with improvements, personally I happen to think the username/password system is dated, but I think this may be outside the scope of the administrators' noticeboard lol ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• 2FA is great in theory. I use it for all critical logins. However, the 2FA here is, to quote, baffling. And it need not be. I know any thingamajig I'm supposed to save on my own I will lose. What other sites do is email me a confirmation code that I then enter. Simple. Nothing for me to lose. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  If you're sure your email isn't going to be compromised, just email yourself the secret. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI reform proposal

At a discussion about conduct resolution systems at the VP idea lab, I suggested that we may be able to significantly improve ANI discussions by adding a bit more structure and reducing the amount of crosstalk between editors directly involved in disputes. Levivich and ProcrastinatingReader seemed to think that it would be a good idea (and isaacl seems to have, possibly independently, come to a similar conclusion further down in the section), so I think it's appropriate to bring it here for a bit more input before making a formal proposal at the village pump.

My suggested reform would be as follows: we add a rubric for new ANI cases that has separate headers for responses by parties to the dispute, and a section for neutral parties to discuss. After a case has been filed, other editors who are directly party to the dispute (whether because they are named by the filing editor or because they independently believe that they are sufficiently involved to be involved in the dispute), can respond once in the appropriate section. No one directly involved dispute, including the filing editor, should make any further comments unless explicitly asked by an uninvolved 3rd party. At their discretion, third parties can deliberate among themselves, add their opinions, and/or carve out additional subsections for disputing editors to answer questions or make further comments. Deviations from the rubric by involved editors should be addressed first with warnings (as well as either refactoring or collapsing of the improper comments as appropriate), and eventually with blocks once the failure to comply with process becomes clearly tendentious.

Draft rubric for the proposal (view in source to see additional in-line notes to help editors fill out the form)
Involved editors Filing editor: YourUserNameHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ExampleUserName (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Affected Page Dispute overview by filing editor Statements by other editors involved in the dispute Statement by ExampleUserName Statements by uninvolved editors

I look forward to hearing people's thoughts on this proposal. If this or a similar proposal gains consensus, we can also see about implementing a nicer webform for it a la Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. As an added note, I think that SebastianHelm's handling of this open ANI case, while not identical to the above proposal, is a great example of how much cleaner ANI discussions can be when disputants are prevented from interacting with each other (another, messier case also related to Nagorno-Karabakh provides a good contrast). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I like, with a few comments. It’s already public knowledge that this format (which is currently used at AE) is far more successful and likely to result in good outcomes (or indeed, a conclusive outcome at all) than the current free-for-all at ANI, which is often characterised by bludgeoning and excessive back and forth. For clarity, I think all “comments by uninvolved editors” should be in one section for all (not separate sub sections per editor, like in ArbCom statements). It could be said that many disputes at ANI are more minor, short affairs that don’t require a formalised structure. True, although one still doesn’t really seem to hurt for them. Possibly the “no further comments unless asked” can be relaxed. Perhaps the filing editor has something useful to add as the discussion progresses even if not explicitly asked. So long as they’re confined to their own section it can’t entirely hurt the rest of the discussion, with few exceptions (such as the lengthy chemistry periodic table disputes). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with your statement about having all uninvolved editors together in one section, and intended that to be the suggestion as part of my original proposal, apologies if that wasn't sufficiently clear. I think that would strike a good balance between bureaucracy and free-form, as it prevents bludgeon-happy editors from going at each others' throats while still allowing uninvolved editors to quickly discuss blocking IP-hoppers or editors making legal threats, types of cases that tend to be low-drama even in the current format. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like, at the moment, the proposal overlooks that WP:AE has a word count. Which may be pivotal in a number of ways. El_C 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would consider a word count limit to be a friendly amendment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unequivocally, I think we should try it. That said, I'm suspicious of the cost-benefit calculus. For all the downsides of our current AN(I) discussion structure (well recorded in the OP) the low overhead required to report an editor is a feature and we should consider what we might lose by increasing the complexity. Namely, a lot of low level problems that we could easily handle may not get reported because the aggrieved editor may think it's not worth the paperwork. To speculate a bit, perhaps our problem is too few reports? AN(I) is deep in project space and filing a report can seem like arcane magic. For most casual editors encountering a problem, I really doubt they'd know to go to AN(I) or AE or ARCA or .... but I'm digressing. The proposal is a well designed solution to a recognized problem and therefore is worth a shot. I don't think it will solve all our problems, and we may need to reevaluate when and how to use it, so I'd want to revisit its use after a couple months. TL;DR I think this will be a useful tool in our toolbox but I'm suspicious of it being a full-on replacement---let's try it and see how it goes. (edit conflict × 2) — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe, Wug, this shouldn’t be required for all but encouraged for editors who suspect they have more nuanced disputes (rather than just the variety which are an admin immediately replying “indeffed”)? Other editors can always clerk and adjust an existing discussion into the format if it quickly turns out the filer’s judgement on the format not being required was mistaken. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) FWIW, I don't think that this proposal really adds much of a burden to a filing editor--if it did we'd likely see more reports filed at ANI that belong at 3RR or AIV (i.e. editors not understanding those boards' formats coming to the "simpler" ANI board to file a complaint). We'd still be missing anyone that finds navigating WP space too complicated full-stop, but addressing that issue will likely take a separate proposal (although implementing a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request-style flowchart for ALL disputes, letting editors figure out which resolution methods are appropriate by answering a few questions, may help that problem).

I think one question (edit conflcit, which ProcrastinatingReader raised above) that does need to be answered is how to go about trying out this reform, whether to try to gain a consensus now to overhaul ANI immediately (and possibly reverse the change if something goes wrong), or start a separate board (e.g. WP:ANI/B) where we can demo the new process without disrupting any existing process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The biggest thing about the current ANI is the massive number of talk page watchers, built up over many years. Starting a new board may not be successful due to that reason, rather than just having an optional (but encouraged) format on the existing board initially. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh implementation is easy imo. Just have the "open a new report" button preload the text you have here. Check out the example edit I made to the header. People can still use the "new section" tab to create a blank one, but I suspect most reports that need the template use the button anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is brought in, would it be possible to get a bot to notify those editors who are the subject of the complaint raised? Suggest a bot run every 15 mins at :00, :15, :30, and :45 past the hour. That would cut down on the perennial complaints of non-notification, especially when the filer is an IP or inexperienced editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• How useful to find that Wugapodes has already articulated more or less what I was thinking. Certainly good to experiment with things, but I'm skeptical that there's more than a minority of cases here which would be helped by such a structure. Also worth noting that imposing such a structure doesn't just cease catering to the loud and loquacious; it shifts to cater to a different group: the more technical communicators who can express themselves adequately with lots of constraints put upon them. Also, a brief counterpoint to "not very well": our dispute resolution structures work much better than they have any business doing, with volunteers actually sorting out many disputes between volunteers on a project anyone can participate in which also happens to be one of the most popular in the world. (This isn't an argument not to try something new -- just a reminder that we're actually not doing too badly). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical that there's more than a minority of cases here which would be helped by such a structure — that. El_C 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  The thing is, it's a minority of cases that cause all the problems. 80/20 rule. So I'd support trying this on the "problem threads". (It's not necessary for every, or even most, threads.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No, absolutely not. The process we have now is not necessarly great - but it's also not broken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Could a clerk role be useful in structuring the 20% in this format, while leaving the 80% alone? Given the number of us that try and be helpful / "enjoy the drama", I'm sure there are more than a few that would volunteer. Slywriter (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think the idea of creating more structure to ANI's most difficult discussions is a good idea. However, that's not a large majority of ANI filings. So perhaps coming up with a method to institute this for those discussions, after it has begun, could produce much of the desired results with fewer unintended consequences. Like if this makes people file fewer ANI reports, including fewer that end up in quick boomerrang blocks, I argue that's ultimately bad for us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I am not a member of the community who believes that ANI is broken and needs to be fixed. I think more than anything else, it simply needs more admin attention. As it is now, a small number of admins do the duty here, then get burned out and stop, and eventually come back, but there are a lot of admins who never seem to pay any attention to the board at all. I think more admin participation (and guidance) would be extremely helpful, but I am opposed to turning ANI into AE-light. The AE structure only works there because the universe of complaints is relatively small, which is not the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think something to remember here is that the strict rules at AE and other arbitration proceedings are there precisely because community processes like ANI have already failed to resolve the issue. AE in particular is for things that have already been to the committee and are still experiencing problems. I'm not sure applying the same restrictions to community-based processes makes a lot of sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rosguill may I also suggest having replicatable subsection templates for "issue-supporting data" cause there may be multiple issues and it might be conducive to have them sectioned for easier discussion and resolution. Example: For the filer:- Issue1-Data and arguments around issue 1; Issue2-Data and arguments around issue 2. Vikram Vincent 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per others who have clearly stated that ANI isn't broken. The whole point of ANI is supposed to be ad hoc requests for intervention where there's no other suitable place to request it. I have no real problem with backend process and procedure—that is, how responding admins are supposed to handle these requests—but I don't think changes on the front end like requiring more structured discussion is a reasonable idea. BMK's 100% right in drawing the comparison to AE, and frankly, I think AE and ArbCom-led sanction regimes should be abolished in favor of community-led processes. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Worth a try. This format has done reasonably well on other community processes and it might help. I really don't understand why people are saying ANI isn't broken, on the contrary it's pretty notorious as a dysfunctional, horrific page and lots of people simply don't spend time there as a result. Hut 8.5 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The "It's not broken" people have as much evidence and justification to their arguments as the "It's pretty notorious as a dysfunctional, horrific page" people. And to be honest, even if its reputation is deserved, I argue that the freeform nature is necessary to fulfill its goal of being the "miscellaneous complaints" department. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the proposed system is incompatible with the page having a broad scope. WP:AE works perfectly well with something similar, for example, and cases on that page can cover all sorts of things. In my experience ANI isn't very good at dealing with complex issues. If you go there to report someone who obviously needs a block then it will be handled quickly, but if you take some protracted dispute there then you typically end up with gigantic walls of text which don't solve much, at least in part because they end up with lots of back and forth between the involved parties without much input from uninvolved editors. As I write this the top section, "Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy", is 22,000 words long and doesn't seem to have resolved anything except possibly to let one person know that there are lots of people concerned about their editing. Hut 8.5 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To paraphase a saying, it runs on the worst system there is - except for all of the rest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this doesn't have any consideration of what to do if, after using their one post, a party can see the participants (potentially multiple participants) going down a clearly wrong garden path. If they're not asked something, they're stuck between rock and a hard place. I also question the "public knowledge AE works better" - AE is smoother but trades it at a significant cost of fairness. This method also reduces the likelihood that participants will read every post before participating. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think some of the rules should be relaxed (eg feel free to add whatever in your own section, no round robin). Regarding reading each reply: most of the time there is no need to read every post. Many comments didn't have to be made in the first place; an involved party is bludgeoning people with their same argument over and over again. In the current ANI I think section # 1, 4, 9, 10 could benefit from structure. It, at very least, makes it much easier to get involved in a conversation, and also encourages the involved parties to reconsider whether their response adds anything, or if it just makes the discussion less attractive for another volunteer to want to spend their time examining. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support in principle This is an excellent idea, though I'd prefer a simpler format for the reports (maybe along the lines of WP:RFPP). The peanut gallery aspect of ANI is one of its worst dysfunctions, and I find makes it both a daunting place for me to seek to help out as an admin and a total crap shot when I lodge a report. A format like this would help, but would need to be adjusted to facilitate quick responses to obvious problems - e.g. there shouldn't be a need to wait for an obviously disruptive editor to respond to a complaint about them. A format which forces people making a report to set out their concerns in a succinct and non-emotive manner and encourages responses in kind could be very helpful in removing the drama element of ANI. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. We have too many bureaucratic processes as it is, and far too much rule creep. The complexity of Wikpedia's rules and regulations is one of the worst things about the back rooms/discussion/community aspects of the site. We have plenty of things we don't need, but one thing we definitely do need is a forum where someone (often a newcomer) can bring something to the attention of administrators simply and in their own words, without having to fill in official forms or structure it according to official formatting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, and if you want to know where the real problem here lies (if there's actually a problem at all, that is), read what User:Beyond My Ken said above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  And re: "It’s already public knowledge that this format (which is currently used at AE) is far more successful and likely to result in good outcomes...". No, it is most definitely not public knowledge that it is more likely to result in good outcomes... at ANI. AE is a very different thing, based on issues that have already gone through community processes and arbitration, via increasing levels of formality/bureaucracy (and, more importantly, the people involved have already been through those levels). And the format works well for that. It is a big mistake to assume that something that works well for AE will work well for ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough on the formality/bureaucracy, though how about if it's made optional? And uninvolved editors can refactor the few discussions that, after some discussion, look like they may benefit from structure. Sure, I suppose anyone can do that already, but few people do because such a degree of clerking would be slightly questionable under current practices. I suspect the discussions that might benefit from such structure tend to involve more experienced participants. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Following threaded discussion is hard enough without a self-appointed army of ANI clerks getting in the way. And remember, this is a site which attracts thousands of people who can't even work out how to make an unblock request, even though it's one of the simplest bits of formality we have and is (as far as I can see) very clearly explained in the standard block messages. Any formality at all at ANI is going to turn away non-technical people who actually need admin help. As for making it optional, that would not solve the problem it's supposed to be solving if people can ignore it and carry on as before. No, I essentially just see ANI as not actually broken and not needing fixing, at least not in a cosmetic way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boing - I see no problems with the current format, and we are bureaucratic enough already. Changing it will simply put off editors from making reports. GiantSnowman 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't watch ANI, because it's well, ANI. But if it is true there is some 20% that would benefit from this structure, I would suggest that for a trial period, Admins and the well versed be able to call a temporary halt to a 'sprawling mess' and impose the structure mid-way through going forward, just for those. Perhaps, think of it as a 'step' in dispute resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support in principle - BMK mentions above that not enough admins get involved at ANI, but part of the reason why it's unappealing is the endless walls of back-and-forth text between the involved parties that one has to wade through. Having a word limit attached might be sensible too for similar reasons. Most of the time, any relevant points can be made in an opening salvo, and all other text is just repetition. Happy to defer to others with more experience if they think it's unworkable, but I think this is worth giving a go.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think the endless walls of back-and-forth text between the involved parties can actually be beneficial. It keeps them away from disrupting productive areas of the project, and just having a place to rant can help cool things down. Just let them hammer away at each other for a bit, and it's surprising how often the argument just peters away without anyone having to do too much at all. And if admin action is needed, just tell the participants to summarize their points and address that, and completely ignore the walls of text. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, in principle. Perhaps there needs to be a division into quick/simple cases, that can be handled in an unstructured way, and non-simple cases, where a structured filing is required. Cases dealing with long-term behavioral problems, entrenched POV and battleground disputes affecting multiple editors definitely require a structured approach. These kinds of threads often devolve into complete train wrecks at ANI, with threads that can stay open for several weeks and grow into anwieldy messes, also poisoned by the votes of the various combatants themselves. A bureactatic structure is exactly what is required to bring some sanity in dealing with these kinds of cases. Nsk92 (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I've just looked over the reports currently at WP:ANI, thinking "Which of these would be made simpler, easier to follow, and easier to resolve if we imposed individual sections for parties, non-parties (and who decides who is a party?), a formal way of responding, imposed word counts or response counts, etc?" I think almost every one of the longer sections would turn into an impossible-to-follow mess of bureaucracy (even impossibler than they currently are), with no real benefits. And the simpler reports would have been made unnecessarily complex. Try it yourself and see what you think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between thinking something won't work, and being opposed to even trying it. Let's test predictions and make decisions based on data instead of assumptions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes indeed. But there is also the danger of "We need to try something, this is something, let's try it". It's a perfectly viable approach to look at existing cases and form an opinion on whether the proposed solution would help with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Why is that a "danger"? Trial and error isn't inherently dangerous, it's an effective way of finding a solution. I don't see any danger in trying Ros's suggestion to see if and how it works. To put it another way, the discussion shouldn't be about whether to try nothing or try something; it should be about what to try. This seems like a well thought out suggestion to me. It's not "this is something, let's try it" (which implies "something" being picked out of thin air or without due consideration), this is: unless we think ANI is perfect the way it is and can't be improved (and you'd have to be crazy to think that), then let's try something to improve it, and this is a "something" that we've tried with success elsewhere and has a very low risk of danger as a pilot. It certainly can't get any worse than how problematic threads currently go, like, say, those dealing with the periodic table or Kurds. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Sure, "danger" is the wrong word, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Before we try something, examining past problems to see if they would have been helped is a valid way to reduce the risk of wasted time and increase the chances of success. So no, there is nothing wrong with my having looked back on existing ANI reports to think about whether the current proposal would have helped them. In fact, I think it's an important step. And I just don't think ANI is as bad as a lot of people make out - I've been hearing it for more than ten years now, yet we still manage to get by with it. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But perfect is the enemy of good enough, and I think it's good enough. Oh, and for a moment there I wondered what the "periodic table of Kurds" was - I'm so glad we don't have one of those ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

          I guess it all boils down to whether we think the status quo is good enough. You say you've been hearing it for ten years, I say that's evidence of a problem. You say we get by, I say getting by isn't good enough. You say danger (or risk) in trying something, I say danger (or risk) in not trying anything. My starting point is that the flat number of active editors over the last ~10 years is evidence that the environment isn't attracting enough new editors, and if the number of active editors doesn't substantially grow (like exponentially), the project is doomed long-term (because as time moves forward, the number of things that need to be documented increases, plus there's the current backlog, meaning as time moves forward, Wikipedia's need for editor time increases, meaning the need for more editors increases, as each editor has a finite amount of time to donate, because editors are, unfortunately, mortal). So recruitment is an existential crisis for the project (if we don't recruit, the project fails), and that means a poor editing environment (one that suppresses recruitment) is an existential problem for the project (poor editing environment = project failure). In short, we must do something! :-)

          On the other hand, people look at the project after 20 years and think, "This is going pretty well, let's not mess with what works." But I think it hasn't been going that well, and any overarching praise of Wikipedia only comes because Wikipedia is judged against really low standards (social media, internet forums). "The last best place on the internet" is like being the last best dive bar. If you're trying to run a restaurant, being the best dive bar isn't really "good enough".

          I fear that too many on- and off-wiki are mistaking monopoly for success: just because Wikipedia is the top Google search result and it isn't totally full of lies like other websites, we think everything is working great the way it is. It isn't. In 20 years, we have nothing even close to an accurate, complete, neutral encyclopedia: I think less than 1% of 1% is "complete", meaning of publishable quality when compared with other academic works. And fixing that problem (increasing the pace of productivity) requires getting a lot more people to edit, and that requires making it a fun place to volunteer, and that requires a dispute resolution system that works well (poor dispute resolution = poor editing environment = project failure). If our recruitment numbers are flat, then that means our dispute resolution systems aren't working well, and that's why I hope you'll support trying something that will improve ANI (even if it's not this sectioned discussion proposal), and not accept the status quo as good enough. And thanks for reading this long rant if you did :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I was thinking the same after reading recent multi-week walls-of-text between combatants editors, with nobody else getting a word in edgeways. Clerking to collapse long comments would also help. Fences&Windows 19:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unbureaucratic approach

The intention of Rosguill's proposal was to “[add] more structure and [reduce] the amount of crosstalk”. As the case Rosguill cites shows, much of the former can be achieved without changing our rules – all it takes for the latter is a request by an admin for a given case, which worked pretty well in that example. The part that can not be achieved without changing the rules is the structure with headlines such as “Involved editors”. However, we don't have to expect that from the person reporting a case. We could simply achieve that by allowing admins and uninvolved editors in good standing to restructure the original request by adding whatever structure they see fit. So, the concerns of Boing and those who voted “per Boing” are addressed: We can leave out the bureaucracy and rule creep and keep it easy for a newcomer to file a report. At the same time, we can still achieve what Rosguill wanted. And best of all, we can even increase flexibility and thus reduce bureaucracy. ◅ Sebastian 12:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't address the Boing concerns. My concerns are about any form of bureaucractic structure, however or whenever imposed, or by whom. As soon as you start imposing a formal structure, at whatever point in the proceedings, you're putting an extra hurdle in the way of people who are not technically adept (and/or psychologically averse to having to do things in a formal way). This is just over-complicating things for, as I see it, no real benefit to those needing the help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

But the organizing method all Wikipedia dispute resolution goes from unstructured to more structured. It's done that way precisely because it is the only tried and true method for any hope of help. Perhaps the dystopian view of ANI that it is just there to put people into an endless bear-pit until they talk themselves out is utilitarian but it is not help, and every good reason to never go near it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a progression from unstructured to more structured, but I think we need that progression starting from unstructured and progressing to more structured forums as problems become more complex. And no, a structured organization is not the "only tried and true method for any hope of help" - the great majority of unstructured ANI reports that end in successful conclusions is the disproof of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Not disproof because you clearly mistook it. The method it to go from unstructured to structured, that's the only method, unstructured is within the method. If the only issues brought to ANI were simple, it would certainly be more pleasant but hardly in tune with reality. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what we're agreeing or disagreeing with here, so maybe I have mistaken your point. As I see it, we already have a progression from unstructured (ANI) all the way to highly structured (ArbCom/AE) as part of our problem solving process. So why change it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I might have got it. Are you addressing my "As soon as you start imposing a formal structure, at whatever point in the proceedings" comment? What I meant there was "at any point in the ANI proceedings" (specifically if anyone, like an admin, retractively applied formal structure to an ANI report that's already open) - I didn't mean we should not apply structure in cases that need to go beyond ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

the great majority of unstructured ANI reports that end in successful conclusions How are you defining success? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone involved gets blocked. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The reports are closed or archived with the problem no longer extant, or at least no longer urgent, due to admin or community action. Or with chronic or intractable problems concluded by community consensus or handed off to, say, Arbitration if that is applicable. Or any other way in which ANI reports are successfully concluded, as any observer can see on a daily basis. Or, of course, if everyone involved gets blocked ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and something else I consider a success is when a report peters out with nothing being done, because nothing needs to be done. I see several reports currently open that I suspect will end like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like the definition of waste not success, it obviously should have been shut down much earlier. More generally, Wiki-Arbitration process generally means dispute resolution has already failed. In the real world more intermediate steps might be called 'case management'. The easy is handled easy but as you get closer to failure, clearer structure seeks to avert failure. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. To me, "success" at ANI means the dispute is resolved, not just that the thread gets archived. There is no way a majority of disputes at ANI are resolved. Except when everyone gets blocked. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To add: perhaps if people were not so mystified about the kismet of unknowable, 'how does this end' of ANI, they might be less loquacious b/c less stressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree then. But people get into conflict all the time, and just letting them talk and letting it all peter out can be a valid method of conflict resolution. We will always get conflicts where there isn't a clear right or a clear wrong, and no obvious optimum solution (and that's true in all human community, not specific to here), but the parties just walking away from it can often be a pragmatic solution. And, even if you disagree and think a petered-out and archived report is a failure, nobody has made the case that that's caused by a lack of formal structure, or that the imposition of a formal structure to ANI reports will make those cases any better. In short, I don't think anyone has properly articulated the problem, or properly analysed problematic ANI reports to try to determine whether the lack of a formal structure might have played a part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing is in most cases, the parties don't walk away; they just keep arguing in the same places as they were before, and maybe new ones. I've rarely seen "letting them rant" result in tempers cooling at the incidents noticeboard, usually because the parties already failed at cooling down when they were ranting elsewhere. Taking a cue from real-world dispute resolution procedures, what is really needed is a moderator to manage discussion. (That of course carries its own set of pros and cons.) isaacl (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Knowing that there is an end in sight is one of the motivations behind the revisit respite concept I documented as part of my suggested content dispute resolution toolbox. In general, when a semi-binding conclusion is pending for a dispute, there is incentive to work towards a best-compromise solution. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Holy wall of text! On word count

As an active ANI admin (and also an AE one), I think one of the biggest challenges faced in the former has to do with posts (quite often OPs) that are of an inordinate length, and also are often (though not always) poorly-documented. Not to (but to) harp again on the notion of word count, but it (alongside reasonably-approved extensions, of course) perhaps ought to be revisited and examined more closely all on its own. There's a dynamic that happens when a wall of text OP, for example, can still be parsed by those involved, but everyone else is effectively shutout. Then, as the thread progresses further, it often becomes less and less accessible to the very outsiders whose review it is seeking. Anyway, nothing too concrete in mind yet, just throwing the general idea out there. El_C 14:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• El_C. here's a fine example of a Holly Wall. Sorry it's not concrete. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, a wall's a wall (unless it's also a fence, somehow...?). Anyway, you wouldn't believe how many "Happy hollidays" I've sent through the years. One of those words that always trips me, it seems.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 16:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I really don’t think wall-of-text OPs are the ones that give ANI its bad rap though. The true wall of text threads usually just get ignored and archived without action. Or OP gets told to condense it, OP doesn’t, and then nothing happens. Where weird stuff happens is when there’s a serious and obvious experience differential between adversarial parties, such as the wall of text scenario but the adversarial party comes back with something concise and actionable, calls for a BOOMERANG, and things progress as we know them to progress.
  Weirdly, at least in my experience, the most notable cases are those where the ANI regulars (those derided as a peanut gallery) look through the case more deeply and suddenly reverse course—maybe it turns out the more experienced person was being a jerk the whole time and baited the OP into doing whatever he did. I’ve seen more than one thread where the initial reaction of the “peanut gallery” was to endorse the experienced editor, only for one of that group to suddenly post a counterargument with diffs that causes a total reversal of course.
  I think there’s room for a more uniform approach to what I’ll call “formal objections”—responses to things like unintelligible complaints, complaints that don’t clearly ask for admin intervention, and failure to notify in the correct manner—but I do think this cuts against more formal front-end constraints. Like look at the notification requirement. That’s not going anywhere of course, but look at how often it’s used to browbeat an OP and make the entire process both less friendly and less likely to reach a conclusion on the merits. Hell, I chewed out an OP for failure to notify a week or so ago in a manner that, in retrospect, very well could’ve ended in the thread getting forgotten about. I think that sort of thing is where the bad reputation really comes from. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that is an important facet, though I'm unsure what effective means there are to improve it, in-practice. I'm open-minded, though. But I'll admit that maybe I'm a bit AE slanted with my above, like for example with this AN thread from earlier in the month that was pretty much left to its own devices, except for the involved in-the-know. El_C 15:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Those megathreads are the worst. To be honest it feels like a lot of those threads are attempting to do what WP:RFC/U used to do (but was never really effective in doing). I feel that the structural proposals above are looking for a way to achieve what RFC/U was intended to do as well.

I think if we want to address megathreads, we should look for a way of differentiating between regular threads and "endless megathreads". It could be very simple to do so. For instance, a thread that hasn't been archived after 96 hours, or a thread with a total substantive wordcount above 10,000 words. These are just example categorizations; they can and should be refined. My purpose in suggesting them is only to start the conversation about megathreads rather than solicit specific means of detecting problem threads.

But that of course begs the question, assuming we find a way to identify problem megathreads, what (if anything) do we do to address them? My honest opinion is that many of those cases should go to arbitration for structure. In the old days, the Committee handled relatively small-scale disputes involving pairs of editors all the time. It's what they should be doing instead of supervising topic areas covering millions of articles. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, all good points, to be sure. But my concern with greatly increasing the frequency of referral to Committee actions is that those are likely to have the effect of simply driving the arbitrators to the point of exhaustion. El_C 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, if the community decides that it hasn't actually been resolves some conflicts that need resolving that's what ArbCom is for. However, ArbCom is a very costly process in the sense that you have a dozen or so arbs focused on the dispute. And so it would be my hope that for conflicts involving a pair of editors that the community could find some effective means of dispute resolution, even if it's not ANI in its current form. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I really want to highlight this part of El_C's comment: There's a dynamic that happens when a wall of text OP, for example, can still be parsed by those involved, but everyone else is effectively shutout. This causes a lot of tangential problems that weren't obvious until I started trying to action walls-of-text-complaints at ANI. I definitely agree with Boing! said Zebedee above that just letting people vent can be helpful sometimes, but bludgeoning discussions really chills intervention. This allows problematic but not egregious conduct to usually go unresolved because one side essentially filibusters until we get a no consensus outcome. The danger I've run into is when there's actually a rough consensus among all that noise, but the number of participants is small. The restriction is appealed on the basis that it should have been a no consensus result or that the closer prejudiced the editor by ignoring the walls of text. It's hit or miss on whether it actually gets overturned, but by creating new conflicts we really wind up kicking the can when we should have been putting it in the bin (see also meatball:ConflictCycle and the more useful meatball:ConflictResolution). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's one of the challenges for collaborative, online decisions-making I've written about: in a face-to-face conversation, participants would use interruptions and other cues to keep one person from dominating conversation and to help more reticent participants be heard. Online communities benefit from having moderators manage discussions to mitigate these issues. I appreciate there are shortcomings to having moderators, but the cost is having meandering conversations that forestall decision-making. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, moderators would have to be admins, wouldn't they, and we've already highlighted the problem that admin participation here is less than it might be. In any case, a certain amount of self-moderation is already in effect. I'm thinking of hatting irrelevant asides, urging participants to return to the initial point, creating new sub-sections to either deal with ancillary issues which have arisen or to refocus on the main thrust of the discussion and so on. To a certain extent, "meandering" is a positive thing, as it allows all aspects of a subject to be examined, including the behavior of the OP or other editors involved in a dispute. These issues don't arise so much at AE, because the focus is much tighter: the reported editor and the evidence of their supposed violations. If discussions get sidetracked into the behavior of another editor, the usual response will be to suggest another report be filed. That's not so much the case at ANI, where traditionally the behavior of all participants is examined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Username question

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

---

Not a conduct issues, but I am of mixed feelings as to whether "User:Trixie is a hooker's name" is an appropriate username. Thoughts? BD2412 T 23:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do not believe it is, but I'm a known conservative. I say block, BD2412. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to give the editor a chance to do something about it first, though I doubt a name change would be granted given that they only have one edit. BD2412 T 23:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • A little googling tells me it may be a pop culture reference to the shows Lucifer and Californication. Slywriter (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • If so, it's obscure enough to leave a negative impression without a sense of resolution to the unwary reader. BD2412 T 01:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• We have a process for this. You've already begun it by speaking to them (you could also use {{uw-username}}, being sure to fill in why you believe it is against policy), if they keep editing and you still have concerns, WP:RFC/N is the appropriate venue to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be a personal attack on someone the editor knows called Trixie. TFD (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Something that is usually done by adding a name (with description) to the 'Notable people' section of an article. - Donald Albury 14:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Image page sandbox.png

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

---

I reupload this image page sandbox for tests, because my picture is a jpeg, not png. Can I go ahead, upload my file, and then use that as a file sandbox? 54nd60x (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Also how to make a HTML page in my sandbox (not HTML) but hides banners e.g. https://thankyou.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You/sandbox 54nd60x (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really an administrative issue, sounds like you might want to ask at WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

CHUBot / Cyberbot I

CHUBot, a task of Cyberbot I, which clerks the WP:CHU pages has been repeatedly blanking WP:CHU/S. I disabled it at 20:31. Despite that the task ran again 00:20 and 00:50 when it blanked the page again.

As the CHUbot task isn't responding to its stop button I've blocked the bot Cyberbot I (talk · contribs). -- Cabayi (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cabayi, and thank you. Just a reminder — when blocking an approved bot for misbehaving, please disable autoblock and don't disable account creation, since those can affect the bot owner. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nyttend, unlikely since I'm an admin. :p —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, not necessarily :-( See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_160#IPBE_and_autoblocks, where I autoblocked myself and couldn't undo it. If you'd logged into the bot account while it was blocked, you may not have been able to edit from your admin account. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nyttend, I guess it's a good thing that I don't, but it may have the unfortunate side effect of blocking other bots on that IP as it belongs to the WMF cloud service. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-Block request

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

---

Can you indefinetly block me so I can't get distracted from Wikipedia? I need it to focus on schoolwork, and so I don't edit articles. Leave TPA so I can say when to unblock. And don't make the block temporary, make it until I request unblock. Thanks --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Wikibreak have been a better idea?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever works for whomever. I've imposed more than a few self-requested blocks, and I doubt this will be the last. El_C 15:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User insists on hoarding drafts under his username

Not an administrator thing. Please follow the dispute resolution procedures. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

---

The user Starzoner redirected my draft to a draft of his that as can clearly be seen here belonged to a draft created for another article. His actions seem inappropriate to me because he seems to insist on wanting to monopolize each and every article about upcoming movies or series under his user. I am making this report not with the intention that it be sanctioned but with the intention that at least it be notified by an administrator that its action is not correct. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How convenient to leave out a specific edit, specifically this one. This comes after I tagged it for potential history merge, and it was removed by him. Now, regarding the drafts, I have self-reverted and tagged my page for deletion. Starzoner (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the draft you are claiming was erased because you abandoned it, not for lack of notableness. Apparently you are only interested in seeing your name as the creator of the articles. How convenient for you to simply delete the page and its history so as not to leave evidence. I withdraw your request to merge histories because I consider it rather a way that you have to remain as the creator of the articles even if deleted with just reason beforehand. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you really want with this post? Starzoner (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The truth is, I just want you to realize that your actions are not correct. I also create many drafts but if they are deleted with good reason, I will not ask for deleted editions to be restored when another user creates the article. In addition, you only need to enter your discussion page to see that every day you receive messages notifying you of the deletion of drafts that are deleted because you simply leave them abandoned. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Requesting TBAN for AmPol and COVID

Per this edit, put in place an indefinite duration topic ban for post-1992 American Politics and COVID-19, broadly construed, for myself. I don't think there's any difference for voluntary bans, but I desire to be subject to the same appeal requirements as an involuntary ban. Thank you. Jdphenix (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be my suggested language "Jdphenix is topic-banned from post 1992 American politics and COVID-19, broadly construed. Violations will be met with escalating blocks. They may appeal this topic ban in no less than six months, and once every six months after that." That's pretty standard. Does that work for you? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Thanks. Jdphenix (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Consider it  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Political Additions after Jan. 21, 2021

While looking at a page for John James Beckley, I found a revision that mentioned "Chinese/American Xho Bai Den". I searched this name and found it on several edits after Jan. 21. All references the article subject being disappointed about a "chinese/american" now being in charge of the country. Be on the lookout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4702:6501:195D:B77:3F93:C0B4 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If this persists I think an edit filter would be an obvious solution. (In case it's not obvious to everyone, this is supposed to be Joe Biden rendered in Chinese. What a hilarious joke!) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The one I've usually seen is "Xiden". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald1972 unblocked

Following an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Donald1972 (talk · contribs) has been unblocked, subject to a restriction from editing the Matthias Laurenz Gräff article. Maxim_(talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Donald1972 unblocked