Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	6	8
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 14 sockpuppet investigations
• 2 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 35 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 13 requested closures
• 68 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 8 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (47 out of 8845 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:189.219.66.135 2024-11-15 00:16 2024-12-15 00:16 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Malayalam 2024-11-14 23:13 2024-12-14 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case 2024 Ramyah clashes 2024-11-14 23:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vietnamese irredentism 2024-11-14 22:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Matal (2018 film) 2024-11-14 20:25 indefinite create Restore salt Pppery Vettaiyan 2024-11-14 18:55 2025-08-19 20:25 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Template:No significant coverage (sports) 2024-11-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II FRVR 2024-11-14 15:27 2024-12-14 15:27 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Queen of Hearts Operation Cast Thy Bread 2024-11-14 14:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case

TBAN appeal by Bgkc4444

Hi there. I'd like to appeal a ban made against me here, more specifically the TBAN. Wugapodes suggested I wait a few days before making an appeal, and I have waited a month couple months now, and even though the ban is over soon, it would be good for me to understand whether and why others agree/disagree with my suggestion. Additionally, WP:BANEX states that an editor should explain why their editing is excepted from the ban; I will be making reference to the banned topic and user here in order to address a legitimate concern about the ban itself in the appropriate forum. It's a complex case so I'll try keep it as brief as possible (which turns out isn't very brief), but I'm happy to provide more details if an administrator would find it useful as there is a lot more that I can say.

1. I don't believe a TBAN against me can be considered to be the just outcome from the discussion. Only one administrator suggested a TBAN, while the others suggested an IBAN. As Wugapodes wrote on ANI, there wasn't much debate on the ban. When I responded to that one editor's suggestion of a TBAN explaining why this would not be the just outcome, I did not receive a response unfortunately. Furthermore, as Wugapodes said, the reason for the suggested TBAN is that an IBAN could be hard to enforce against editors if we edit in the same topic. However, Isento said "I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles" and admitted to editing in such articles more just because I was editing in them as well, so I don't think an IBAN would be hard to enforce if there is no TBAN. Additionally, the issue with an IBAN would only stand if neither editor has a TBAN, but enforcing a TBAN on one editor will produce the same result as enforcing it on both. Also, this will be a long story so I'm happy to clarify further if requested, but the claims made against me that were used as the basis of the sanction (e.g. wikilawyering) were unexplained and unsubstantiated, and I asked many times for these claims to be clarified, but no diff was ever cited for such behavior. I do not see why I should be banned because of unsubstantiated claims made about me that I repeatedly asked for explanation of and received no response.
2. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our previous behavior and between our receiving of prior warnings and sanctions. Isento previously received multiple constructive talk page messages about his behavior, a final warning from an administrator after he told me: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?", and a block from Ivanvector after further personal attacks were made against me and other editors and also modifying another editor's comment on a Beyonce-related talk page which QEDK and BD2412 warned him about, and this block happened shortly before the ANI report in question. During and after that block, he continued to make personal attacks against me and other editors, such as when he admitted his personal intolerance of me, called the administrators "hypocrites" and called ANI a "kangaroo court", as well as repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues during the ANI discussion in question as explained here (and later inappropriate behavior is explained below). This explains why a strong sanction such as a TBAN was placed against Isento, as talk page messages didn't help, formal warnings didn't help, and blocks didn't help. On the other hand, I have not once received a polite talk page message from Isento. As explained during the ANI discussion, Isento just repeatedly places warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replies sarcastically when I ask him to clarify, such as here. Importantly, for the issue that the ANI report was on, there was not even any form of talk page message or dispute resolution attempted before as should have been done, with Isento going straight to ANI over an issue that could have and should have been addressed through several possible means before an ANI report was necessary. Further, as well as not receiving constructive messages on my talk page, I have not even received any formal warning or block for my interactions with Isento. I do not see why someone who has never received any formal sanction for this let alone received constructive talk page messages should receive the same sanction as someone who has received multiple sanctions from administrators for his behavior in order to provide him with multiple chances to improve his behavior, which unfortunately has not been successful.
3. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our behavior on Beyonce-related articles after the ANI report in question, as exemplified by the discussion on Talk:Beyoncé#RfC:_Should_the_subject_of_this_article_be_defined_as_a_songwriter_in_the_lead?. I always kept cool in this discussion and made constructive contributions, despite the fact that I faced several false accusations, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by the few "no" voters. Worst of all, one of those editors (HĐ) made a false accusation about me to ANI citing solidarity with Isento, which Games of the world, TruthGuardians and HandThatFeeds all said was a false accusation that was highly inappropriate. The fact that I kept cool and did not make personal attacks even in the most severe cases where I was faced with strong attacks and provocation, means that I would never make such attacks, and so a TBAN is unnecessary. On the other hand, Isento hasn't made such changes to his behavior, and instead has also continued to make false accusations and assume bad faith about other editors during that discussion. He even made complaints to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" (Xurizuri and Israell) who disagreed with him about a Beyonce-related issue, also making false accusations and assumptions of bad faith against both of them, without even notifying them on their talk page. When Isento was told how inappropriate this was, such as by Binksternet, he did not take accountability for it. Such behavior shows that this isn't just a behavioral issue with me, but that this is a chronic issue that Isento has with editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. I do not see why someone who has learnt from their mistakes, is evidently trying to becoming a better editor and has not engaged in personal attacks etc since (even in the most severe of cases), should receive the same sanction as someone who - despite being on Wikipedia for 13 years and receiving sanctions for his behavior - does not indicate that he is learning from his mistakes or trying to become a better editor, and instead continues to engage in personal attacks etc specifically against editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. This is why I do not believe that the TBAN should be enforced against me. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face.

Thank you very much to anyone who can help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bgkc4444, are you able to offer a condensed version of the appeal? I'm just finding it prohibitively lengthy, so myself, I am unlikely to review it for those reasons alone. Thanks and good luck! El_C 18:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: Sure, sorry about that! Hopefully this is better. I believe that the TBAN should be rescinded because:

a) the TBAN was the suggestion of one editor and was not properly discussed and the consensus more indicated just an IBAN

b) the reason given for the TBAN isn't a strong argument (it was said that an IBAN is difficult to maintain without a TBAN, but the user I am in the IBAN with said he edits in Beyonce-related articles more because I do too, and also having one TBAN causes the same effect as having two)

c) the claims made against me that were used as reasons for sanction were unsubstantiated without any diffs given despite my repeated requests for explanation

d) the other user had received multiple constructive talk page warnings, a final warning from an administrator and a recent block from an administrator regarding his behavior towards me on Beyonce-related issues, whereas I received none of those (most importantly, the editor did not try the correct methods of dispute resolution and went straight to making the ANI report against me)

e) during and immediately after the ANI discussion where the other editor was blocked, as well as during the ANI discussion in question, he made multiple personal attacks such as calling the administrators hypocrites and repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues, whereas I did not make such attacks and yet we received the same sanction

f) since the ANI discussion finished, the other editor and I were in the same disussion on a Beyonce-related article. I was faced with personal attacks and false accusations, including a false complaint to ANI cited in solidarity with the other editor. Despite this, I did not make any personal attacks in response, which shows that no matter how much I am provoked, I will no longer respond inappropriately. The other editor himself, however, made false accusations about editors and made a false complaint to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" who disagreed with him, without writing a message on those editors' talk pages. This shows a clear disparity between how the other editor and I will edit on Beyonce-related topics going forward, and yet we both received the same TBAN. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face. Bgkc4444 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, honestly, you may be right about the unequitable warnings and otherwise sanctions — or maybe not. No idea. But the point is that you are asking reviewers here to do a fair bit of investigating for a topic ban that, what, expires in 2 months? So, maybe just sit this one out...? I'm just preparing you for the possible consequence of how scarce volunteer resources may be, especially about a really narrow sanction that expires soon(ish), anyway. Still, I can see you wanting to clear your name or whatever, notwithstanding these more pragmatic considerations. But as an active admin, I, for one, would not treat you differently due to this sanction (like as a problem user), if that helps at all. Anyway, who knows, maybe reviewers who are familiar with the case, or ones who possess the time and inclination to investigate, will show up to opine, after all. Good luck. El_C 20:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Allow me to take this opportunity to add my thoughts on topic bans. Wikipedia has well over 6 million articles now, covering literally hundreds of thousands of topic areas. It is possible for any author interested in working on the project to spend all their available hours working productively in any number of these areas. Topic bans are rare enough that I would counsel any editor subject to one to find something else to do for the duration. BD2412 T 20:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, BD2412, thank you both for your comments. I fully understand both of your points and recognize the practical challenge. However, I was told that I can make an appeal "any time before" the end of the ban, as well as that I shouldn't make an appeal too close to the ban's initiation, so I still hope that the appeal can be considered even if I have missed the short period of time in which making an appeal would be the most practical. Still, of course, the administrators have the power and superior knowledge of bans here, and I guess I don't have a choice in what admins choose to look at or don't. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is simply a problem with English language knowledge but I feel, if a topic ban was imposed on "6 January 2021", saying "waited a couple months now" on 7 February is likely to be considered misleading. Yes it's very slightly over a month, but it's hard to call that 2 months. (I don't think 2 months or 1 month matters much in a case like this, but it's still better not to confuse or mislead.) To be fair, Wugapodes also confusingly set their 3 month topic ban to expire on 6 March, but I'm fairly sure I haven't either entered a parallel universe or suffered a head injury that made me forget that there's an extra month between January and February. Perhaps one of the sources of confusion is that the discussion itself started on 12 December and so I guess the stuff that lead up to it was even before then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, that's a great point - thanks for noticing that. I saw the three-month ban was intended to end in March and assumed it had been two months - I've corrected it above. I assume the end date was a mistake and it should end in April. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified on Bgkc4444's and Isento's talk pages that I'm bad at math, and out of fairness clarified that we should honor the end date I gave over the time frame since, when instructions conflict, we should prefer the specific over the general. to be clear, the sanction is now 2 months, still ending on March 6 as I told the editors, not three months as I stated in the close. As for the appeal, I don't have much to say beyond what I said in the discussion closure. Consensus for a TBAN was admittedly weak, but the reasoning was strong an unopposed: if we want to prevent disruption, pairing a TBAN with the IBAN would probably work best. If editors here think the TBAN is not WP:PREVENTATIVE then it should be removed. Reading the appeal, I'm not sure it makes the case for that clear, but I think point 1 in the OP which relies on this diff gets closest to answering that question. In my experience Bgkc4444 has been taking advice well, so I'm not really worried that lifting the TBAN will cause huge problems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thank you for your comment. Yes, that point is part of the reason, but I believe that the TBAN against me isn't preventing anything because I do not believe I have indicated that I will imminently or continually damage/disrupt Wikipedia. I may be misunderstanding these rules so please let me know if I am, but I read the sentence at WP:PREVENTATIVE which says "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition" to mean that a TBAN is only used when it is believed that an editor will repeat their inappropriate behavior if the TBAN isn't implemented. I believe that this is not the case for me. As explained in the last point of the appeal above, there was a discussion on Beyonce's article that both the other editor and I participated in after the ANI discussion died down and before the IBAN and TBANs were implemented, and to me our respective behaviors during that discussion are indicative of what our behavior would have been if the TBAN wasn't implemented, and so are indicative of whether a TBAN is necessary. I was constructive in the discussion and receptive to others' concerns. Other editors did not do so to me, and even one complained about me to ANI about a false situation cited in solidarity with the editor I am in an IBAN with. Despite this, I did not retaliate or show inappropriate behavior to this editor, and I believe the fact that I did not show inappropriate behavior in such a severe case shows that I would never do so no matter how much provocation I face. I believe that this is what shows that the TBAN against me is not preventing anything. Just having the discussion on ANI showed me the appropriate way of interacting with others (which is why I said above that instead of the other editor going straight to ANI when he had a problem with my edits, he should have used the correct methods of dispute resolution such as a talk page message), while a TBAN doesn't help me with this. I am not saying that the TBAN for the other editor should be rescinded as well, as he assumed bad faith about the editors who disagreed with him in that discussion and made inappropriate complaints about them to ANI, but of course that is up to the admins to decide. Thank you for your help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Sorry to ping you again, but in case you haven’t seen I replied above :) Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Bgkc4444

No worries! I had seen the reply but don't have much to add. It seems removing the TBAN may be worthwhile, but that requires more input than just mine imo. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Unban Request by TheBellaTwins1445

@TheBellaTwins1445:, originally blocked for sockpuppeting, then indefinitely blocked and ultimately 3X banned for repeated infringements of the same, has requested an unblock. Additional details can be found in the series of blocks/appeals on their talk page. Their unban request is included below, and I will copy across relevant follow-up messages they post on their talk page. If a CheckUser could confirm as far as logs enable as an opening step, that would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, a long time ago my account on the English Wikipedia was blocked because of sockpuppetering with multiple accounts. I know it was wrong, but all I wanted to do was to continue working here on Wikipedia and edit articles in a constructive manner, not wanting to commit any kind of vandalism. Also I was a kind a fool with Wikipedia, like yeah I have being editing for a long time, but it was just like some kind of part time thing, but now I do love to help editing articles, so certainly this time I am taking all of this in a serious way. TheBellaTwins1445 will be my only account forever, if someone can help me deleting all of the others, I will be really grateful. Hope this time you trust on me. Thank you and i'll wait for your response.

--

Support, assuming no evidence of recent block evasion. Six confirmed sockpuppet accounts speaks poorly, but WP:SO exists so users can turn things around and be welcomed back. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question - I have serious doubts about whether this is an acceptable username considering that the editor worked on professional wrestling articles and The Bella Twins are two living people who are retired pro wrestlers. What do other editors think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) If this were a new account I'd be right there with you. However, with 23K live edits dating back to 2015 AND who knows how many discussion-page references and other places that link to the name, I'm inclined to "grandfather" it in on the condition that the user page makes it abundantly clear that 1) this account is run by one person, not a pair of twins, and 2) there is no relation to any well-known person or group of people with a similar name off-wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• CU note I find no evidence of recent socking. As always, remember that the CU tool is not dispositive, they could be socking and just being clever about it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support a chance to return to good standing. Trust that the editor has learned the perils of sockpuppetry. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - used to be a constructive contributor, hopefully they will have learned a lesson about sockpuppetry. I'm sure they are aware that any more socking will make it much harder for them to be unbanned next time. Pahunkat (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again

• COVID-19 misinformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (& see history), recent WP:POVFORK creation written by now-tbanned editor
• Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This particular topic has been plagued with SPAs and POV pushing, the main one was recently topic banned, unbanned and rebanned (see: WP:GS/COVID19), and discussed at AN/ANI a few times. This is a long discredited conspiracy theory by consensus of scientists and all peer-reviewed publications, and most recently by the WHO. The SPAs are mostly relying on regular preprints published by two authors, Rossana Segreto & Yuri Deigin (such as this). It's all based on crappy sourcing (eg preprints & WP:OPINDIA [1]) and misrepresentations of existing sources. Today this tweet was published referencing the POVFORK page, which may explain the recent influx of newly created SPAs trying to push the theory, but they've been pretty relentless for months anyway.

There is an active GS in the topic. Can we get some administrative action here? This stuff is beyond tiring now. As soon as lengthy meaningless walls of text are debated on one talk page, folks move on to the next talk page and restart the conversation from scratch, or create new fringe articles. This isn't a legitimate content debate. It's just disruptive and tiring contributors out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I don't have much time for paperwork at the moment, but I'm inclined to slap some sourcing restrictions on these pages as discretionary sanctions, and keep an eye on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis for a couple days in case the edit war returns. I'm just not sure how much that would help since the primary issue is talk page bludgeoning. That's best dealt with by topic bans, but I don't really know the topic area that well, so if you want tbans handed out I recommend taking some time to present some representative diffs here or at WP:AE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I think sourcing restrictions would be helpful, for sure. There was, and still is, an effort on various noticeboards to get an opinion that MEDRS doesn't apply and/or that preprints and opinion pieces are as valuable as peer-reviewed pieces and scientist commentary. Such a sourcing restriction on the affected pages, along the lines of valereee's or Poland, would provide support to editors and slow down the overwhelming rate of talk page fluff and forum shopping. There's also a discussion at ANI currently re a particular editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

lol on Valereee's source restriction. My claim to fame. Given that it's currently at ArbCom, I'd say @Wugapodes would def be the better person to place it on those pages while I await my fate. Or doom, whichever. :D —valereee (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that the issue with the Segreto paper isn't that it isn't peer-reviewed (it's been published), but that it's a primary source. Another MEDRS concern is the astounding lack of credentials of the authors and apparent lack of editorial oversight in the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series, which the Segreto and Sirotkin papers appear under. JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's also SPA disruption at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (while the mainspace redirect had to be protected by Valeree). I did the instinctive thing, but that obviously came back negative... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, thank you very much for the trust expressed by this single ping.

Per WP:GS/COVID19:

• Billybostickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been topic banned from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community, or 01 January 2023, whichever comes first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC) see "02:48, 13 February 2021"

  Billybostickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked from editing for 2 weeks for violating the topic ban from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC) see "02:48, 13 February 2021"

• COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• COVID-19 misinformation is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Wuhan Institute of Virology is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is semi-protected indefinitely.

Additionally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has been semi-protected for a month because of reasonable concerns about canvassing.

This can probably be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much ToBeFree. This should aid with a bunch of the disruption, but I'm not sure all of it as some ECP users are responsible for some of the lengthier disruption, for example at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. I still think ideally a solution should be devised for that, otherwise it'll almost certainly flare up again once this thread is archived. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Billybostickson had not been formally notified about the sanctions in this area, so I have replaced the sanction and the block by a warning with a proper notification. I had seen a {{GS/alert}} regarding these sanctions on User talk:PaleoNeonate and User talk:Hemiauchenia, but Billybostickson hadn't received one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on something else

I would like to thank User: SQLfor removing the block and ban which ~ ToBeFree used to unjustly (in my opinion of course) gag me at the behest of User: Random Canadian. However, I would also like to thank ~ ToBeFree for remedying the mistake and attempting to provide a relatively coherent justification and for answering my 6 questions about the block and ban. After a friendly discussion with ~ ToBeFree and in line with his advice I would like to add again what he deleted twice on this page (my response to a false claim by User: RandomCanadian and User: PaleoNeonate:

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:

"I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that.

Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish, but please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text.

To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billybostickson

Thanks to any admin who has read this response, hopefully we can now move on and ensure that a quite plausible "lab leak hypothesis" is not falsely conflated with bio-weapon allegations, which is the current state of affairs and the reason for some of the disputes on the Covid-19 origin pages. I understand it is hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff and trying to ensure the WP pages are neutral and factual. My respect for that work you do. Billybostickson (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billybostickson: I didn't remove anything. ToBeFree undid the block that they had made, and as such, I closed out your unblock request. I haven't read anything associated with that block, and because of that, I have no opinion on it. SQL^{Query me!} 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if copying the above here was appropriate but would just like to clarify that I don't have anything to add and don't think it's necessary to defend my previous complaint. Thanks to ToBeFree for their advice at Billy's page and for the page protections. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the wall of text above should be collapsed or otherwise clerked, as it doesn't really further the discussion at all and seems to be an assorted mixture of grievances. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that ToBeFree, my mistake. I will ignore the arrogant response by Paleo I disagree with ProcrastinatingReader who seems to be attempting to suffocate a justified response to false claims by disparaging them instead of allowing them to be visible so that we all can learn from our errors.Billybostickson (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Just saying before anyone notifies me, I have seen the above message and chose to do nothing. The current heat is fueled by an incorrect block. No, there was neither arrogance nor disparagement involved in these messages. People disagree with each other, that's all.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what "error" you're talking about. Afaics ToBeFree unbanned you due to bureaucratic requirements ({{gs/alert}}), not because the merits of the ban were wrong. Your first action since is to post this, which is another wall of text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional user space copies

• User:ProcrastinatingReader has found two more examples of a very substantially similar nature to the draft at MfD mentioned above. I have bundled them with the original nomination since it's extremely unlikely the outcome would be any different if they were nominated individually; and also because they are substantially similar. If anybody here feels that the bundling is incorrect, feel free to undo that and start individual nominations. In any case, I don't think we'll want to be playing whack-a-mole with this kind of nonsense... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't find them. Did you mean PaleoNeonate? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

<humour>Phew I'm not an admin yet or I'd be blocking the wrong guys all over</humour> Yes, clearly, my bad. Anyway, the point I made above about whack-a-mole copies of the draft stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

DRN thread

• FYI, User:Billybostickon has now filed a thread at DRN, here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story. This should also be seen in light of continued discussion/disruption on the Covid-19 misinformation talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The DRN thread has been closed, as the filer has been topic-banned and also blocked for 2 weeks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• We need several topic bans and/or WP:NOTHERE blocks in the area, rather than wasting more time, thanks for the progress, —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment about DRN

Editors sometimes open threads at DRN about disputes that are already also being discussed in another forum. They may, in good faith, think that DRN has a more extensive scope than it does. Sometimes they are being evasive or are wikilawyering. The DRN volunteers close such disputes if we notice that the matter is pending somewhere else. This was a relatively easy close, because the the filing party was blocked shortly after filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So: Please be aware that forum shopping is disapproved of, and you are encouraged to bring content disputes to DRN that are not pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Off Wiki Recruitment

There has been discussion of related Wikipedia articles by pro "lab leak" conspiracy theorists on twitter, which has likely resulted in the recruitment of new and dormant pro-"lab leak" editors to talk pages and related discussions, see [2] for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a someone covertly canvassing editors via email who have expressed favourable opinions in the past year to vote keep on the MfD. See Special:Diff/1006867793/1006871631. Seriously problematic. Which also explains for the rise in keep voters of late, some of which haven't edited for months prior to the MfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Reported the blatant infringement at ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert: It was ScrupulousScribe, who has been blocked for two months as a result. We would probably have never figured out the exact user unless the guy who admitted being emailed revealed who it was. Can someone make a section on the MfD to let the closer know about this? As it is likely to get lost in the walls of text otherwise (I have been asked to not make any further edits to the MfC discussion, and I will respect this). Also, there's nothing stopping ScrupulousScribe creating another dummy account and using it to continue to covertly canvass users via email undetected.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Account creation should be disabled per the block log, unless he has a dynamic IP (but that would be block evasion, and let's not immediately go down the path of WP:ABF - they might be misguided/problematic, but let's hope they're not that kind of problematic). As nominator, I'll post an additional additional notice under the existing ones at the top. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, slightly off topic but might I recommend changing that link to Special:Diff/1006869407/1006871631? Your current link covers a few revisions too many which make it seem like you're the canvassed editor at first glance Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

note: an RfC has been started at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all. Given the sheer amount of SPAs and offwiki recruitment on the MfD and in general, it's possible that the RfC may see the same sort of issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If my spidey sense is anything to go by, we're already seeing it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This (posted this afternoon) is egregious and well beyond the pale, particularly as it seems to target specific editors (myself included). I'd have removed the offending comment here (since it's strictly not related to the discussion) but obviously I'm better not doing that, especially since the original poster is stubborn about it. @Barkeep49: (or ArbCom in general, you happened to be first on the list) Is there anything that can be done about this kind of off-wiki behaviour, or are we stuck here waiting for these NOTHERE nuisances to show themselves? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This thread is rather long and my attention occupied in other ways. However, my quickread of this situation is that it's not in ArbCom's remit at the moment as there isn't offwiki evidence that needs to be considered about specific editors. It seems like there might be bog standard administrative actions available here (i.e. doing some extended confirmed protection to thwart newly registered accounts) and since you're already at AN - which some administrators might see it - hopefully you'll get some assistance. Feel free either by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page with a concise summary if I've gotten this wrong. Just a note that I am on the lookout for someone to get elected to ArbCom next year who will appear before me alphabetically because I seem to be first on the list for many people. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Normally it's fine to delete WP:NOTFORUM and WP:PA style posts (WP:TPG), except sometimes if other editors answered, remains to determine if it's really in the "Removing harmful posts" category (I don't really care if it remains, it at the same time exposes them)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban or NOTHERE block for Dinglelingy

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

Their activity on Wikipedia has only been to promote specific sources and views on COVID-19. Behavior has also been suboptimal including accusations and WP:WIKILAWYERING, this despite previous warnings. They've been warned about WP:PA/WP:FOC and WP:SPA/WP:HERE by myself here (it wasn't the first behavioral issue but it was after I noticed this uncalled-for comment). Warned again by Doug Weller here after accusing editors at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. They've already received the GS alert for COVID-19 in January from El C here. Despite these they are keeping up, now at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation like: 1, 2. It may be time for the unevitable... —PaleoNeonate – 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• It seems there is something unsavoury happening here. So Dinglethingy (a likely sock and/or WP:SCRUTINY-avoiding returning user of some kind, judging by their edit history) writes[3] a diatribes prominently naming several editors. This then gets screenshotted and posted on twitter by a "lab leak" proponent[4] and subsequently there is a call to arms suggesting the proponents create "the GameStop of lab leak".[5] It would be good if an admin could untangle what's going on. And it would be good if Wikipedia does not become the attempted venue for the "GameStop of Lab leak". Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• The user known here as BillyBostickson is also back at it (after having earlier made their account private). And yes the call to arms is very worrying. Although we can't directly link any user here to a twitter handle (except the previous); I'd say that overall, this constitutes a sign of clear complicity in an attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. I support both options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"PaleoNaziNate & Random Canadian Kapo" bahahahaha clearly he is very mad, at least ScrupulousScribe was civil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"PaleoNaziNate"??! When "PaleoNeoNazi" is just right there?! (No shade to PaleoNeonate, of course). JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Anybody with a Twitter account should ideally report the offender for abusive behaviour (I've reported the matter to ArbCom here); though I don't know if our definition of "abusive behaviour" is more stringent than that of social media platforms (probably). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot

I had some trouble with this bot recently. I posted details on the operator's talk page. But I now notice that this user has not posted since 26 July 2020. As the bot seems to be faulty and driverless, please can someone block it or otherwise resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson I don't think the bot is exactly faulty (or at least this is an edge case) - it is expecting text in the Source field and I am going to guess that it was (unsurprisingly) unable to evaluate the template that you used ({{citation}}) and therefore it thought it was empty. You'll see that now there is text in that field, the bot is happy. I think this is probably a rare event - 99.9% of the time people will simply fill in the fields with text (which is fine) or leave it blank (which the bot will catch). The rest of its taggings appear to be fine, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• A {{citation}} template is a standard way of specifying a source, which is why I used it and will continue to do so. It contains standard data items such as a date, author and URL which one would expect when specifying a source. If the bot is unable to parse these then it is not fit for purpose. If it is unable to make sense of what it finds, it should still recognise that there is something there and pass this as an exception to its human operator. It should not in the meantime go dropping misleading and hostile tags and messages.

A bot operator is expected to provide good communication per bot policy, WP:BOTCOMM. It seems clear that we're not getting it in this case. If this bot is now orphaned, it should be blocked or otherwise disabled per WP:BOTISSUE.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Many, perhaps even most, botops are inactive or otherwise not actively maintaining their bots. For this particular issue, it's likely blocking the bot will result in its features being unavailable for an unspecified period of time, perhaps forever. An ideal resolution would be you adding the licensing information in the standard way which the bot can understand. It may also be worth contacting the botop by email. Your current way of doing things is not machine-readable anyway, which makes it problematic. See the various added categories such as Category:Files with no machine-readable source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The policy WP:BOTCOMM states that "Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. ... This is a condition of operation of bots in general." If this and other bots are not compliant with this condition then they should be shut down. Complex software requires continuous support and so should not be launched in a fire-and-forget way. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to file an RfC to shut down the bots of any operator who hasn't edited in 6 months or a year. I imagine you will find a snowing consensus against. Even when the operators are active various bots are mostly unmaintained afaik, such as the GA bot. Various codebases are taken over from past operators who went inactive, and are mostly just maintained for stability. In any case, this still ignores the fact that your method of tagging images is not machine readable and thus is not the correct way of adding the data. I'm not sure why you're insistent on seeing the bot make a change, rather than just changing your wikitext into the machine readable format...? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

[Ignoring the what-to-do question] Andrew, {{citation}} is not a standard way of specifying an image source. It's a valid way, so the tag was a mistake and Wikiacc correctly removed the tag, but the standard way to provide an image source (and a good way of avoiding this situation in the future) is to describe the image with {{Information}} and to put the source in the |source parameter. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to Andrew, there are no such instructions on the file upload pages (mainly, I suspect, because the issue hasn't come up previously). Of course the vast majority of users are simply going to provide text rather than fiddling about with templates so it's not surprising. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyttend: note that I didn't remove the tag, I just added some more text to accompany it, both for added context and to make ImageTaggingBot stop. Wikiacc (¶) 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot expects source information to be in the form of free-form text on the image description page, or a filled-out "source", "author", or "artist" field in an {{Information}} or {{Image information art}} template (or a template that transcludes one of those templates, such as {{Non-free use rationale}}), or a filled-out "source" field in {{Non-free media data}} or {{Non-free audio data}}, or any of 23 templates such as {{self}} that provide boilerplate sources, or any of 114+ copyright templates that provide source.

{{citation}} isn't on the list of known ways to provide source information. I'm not going to add it, because it's fairly common for people to use that template in non-source-providing ways on image description pages. If you want the bot to see what you're writing, use a standard method (I recommend {{Information}}). --Carnildo (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in servicing a false-alarm-bot – I improved an article with a valid PD image and then want to be left alone per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I'd still like to know why the bot tagged the image for deletion when its documentation explicitly says that it shouldn't do this: "ImageTaggingBot does not tag images for deletion." Reviewing the approval, the bot seems to be exceeding its authority by trying to make sense of the image description (and failing).

The more general issue of machine-readability seems to be a work-in-progress – see Phabricator: T194465: When the author/source is indicated with a template, it is categorized as "Files with no machine-readable author/source" ... Maybe the first step of resolving this issue should be some publication (or link to past publication) of machine-readable marking, expected by the software. At the moment those categories are useless, as they are filled with millions of files with correct templates and author/source info.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I figured that this question was coming from someone new, but Andrew has been here since the 2000s. Let me be blunt: it was tagged for deletion because you didn't follow standard procedure, and it's not compulsory for the bot operator to change the bot's operation just because you want to use the wrong template. Since you've been here for this long, you know that plenty of deletions are done rather carelessly, so you shouldn't be surprised if plenty of your images are not only wrongly tagged but wrongly deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Want to appeal a topic ban that has been in operation for three years now

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

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#Capitals00

G'day all.

I am here to appeal a topic ban (hereinafter referred to as simply a 'ban' for simplicity's sake) that was imposed on my account on May 15, 2018. Limited in scope (it applied to 'pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan), the ban nonetheless effectively curtailed my range of editing. I must at the outset acknowledge the fact that this ban was put in place in the first place because my editing and concomitant conduct in the said domain was deemed to be battlegroundish and rightly so.

There was without doubt deterioration in conduct leading to the arbitration enforcement report that led to the ban in the said domain, which was most regrettable and something I never felt good about. It was rightfully nipped in the bud. There was a passive consciousness of this deterioration in conduct even then, and with the wisdom of hindsight things have only become more clear. Having said that, seen in the broader context of my editing back then, which was largely focused on content creation, writing articles, developing and taking them to high standards through sustained research, making DYK and ITN nominations and stuff, this was somewhat a stray, and, again, highly regrettable involvement in what I would say a very narrow set of volatile articles; it led to the narrowness in interest and detracted me from my larger objective of writing articles on subjects I knew about and stuff.

The ban came with a rider that 'that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block,' and this has been like a sword hanging over my head, and without doubt, to some extent was a factor that contributed to a significant decline in my contributions over the past two years,[6] though it was largely on account of a busy real life. Nonetheless, it has been quite stressful to edit under the constraint of this ban, with all its restrictions and injunctions, for even a potentiality of a minor overlap makes me think twice before continuing to edit in that direction. I made close to 6,000 edits in the year 2018 alone, after the ban came into effect, largely in the WP:ARBIPA domain, writing a number of good articles and DYKs such as DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (), PSLV-C42 ( ), Ankita Bhakat ( ), and Baby Rani Maurya (), besides occasional but significant contributions here and there over these years in what might serve as an eloquent example of my bona fide intention to serve this project.

Three years is a long time and I truly believe that this ban has outlived its utility and has over the years become more of an impediment. Prior to the this whole episode, I had been working on articles like Vikram Batra (which I singlehandedly developed from almost scratch to B-class, adding tens of thousands of bytes in the process,[7] using a vast pool of resources) and User:MBlaze Lightning/Myra MacDonald. I had plans to eventually develop the former into my magnum opus and take the latter to at least DYK... I therefore ask, nay, request the community to kindly reconsider this ban and lift the same in light of my vastly reformed conduct, my eagerness to make amends for the past misconduct, and to continue to contribute to this project, particularly in the said domain, not under the constraint of any ban but with the freedom to choose and contribute wherever I want to. I shall forever be grateful to the community.

Thanks, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. No need for this to be longer than it already has. WP:FORGIVE, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Having watched the edits from this user in the histories of South Asian military articles, I can safely suggest that the area will benefit from his presence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support rescinding. A cogent, heartfelt and reflective appeal. Also factoring abuse amelioration, with myself having declined a bogus AE complaint 2 weeks ago that falsely charged the appellant with contravening their ban (the filer has since been blocked by the Arbitration Committee). El_C 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Holy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive279 — did I really close 11 of 14 reports? I think Sandstein would be proud. Hum hum hum. El_C 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  El C, thanks, I guess? It's certainly good seeing somebody attending to the process. In my experience it doesn't really work with respect to the unblockables, and ArbCom doesn't seem to want it to work in these cases, so I'm now spending my time elsewhere. But I guess that's an experience everybody needs to make for themselves. - While I'm here I might as well also support lifting the ban based on the convincing appeal. Sandstein 15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, let this user contribute to the topic area they want to improve. Nicely crafted appeal. enjoyer|talk 11:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support The user has had a couple of AE hits, one bogus, one out of scope, so clearly fine, and the other such a minor technical breach (that their own actions helped stop) that even AE decided the best course was no action. Given the timescale, I feel that only a support is an appropriate outcome, in lieu of evidence to the contrary. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Support If the user starts behaving battleground-ish again, then they can be re-TBANNED, but as long as they don't get into the same problems as before, unblock to reduce unnecessary discontent and because at most the damage done will be none or limited. 4D4850 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. How the system should work. Good appeal and evidence of them moving on. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Very good appeal and a constructive user. I and all my socks support lifting the ban. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support. A good appeal, and a solid portfolio of constructive work outside contentious areas. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Everybody deserves a second chance.--Berig (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. Hell yeah Sro23 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning, would you please consider changing your signature to something readable? As it stands, it is very hard to decipher and probably fails WP:SIGAPP. Fram (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually never thought about it like that. But I got no problem, so I have done the needful. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Very clear cut case. Mblaze hasn't been sitting out watching the clock to pass $x months, or $x edits, or making excuses. Instead, they've become a better editor in every respect during this restriction, clearly demonstrating that restrictions aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Possible self-promotion/advertising on Double Dare (franchise)

The article has been under some possible self-promotion/advertising for the past few months, seemingly in regards to an audio technician by the name of John Krepol.

This has been going on since about October by now three different users: John V Krepol, Jesse Cute, and most recently Galbicsek. The first editor, John V Krepol, also had an page deleted back in October at User:John V Krepol (I had seen it myself before it was deleted, and it was basically the person's entire resume of work).

Of all the additions of Krepol to the article, the only one actually 'sourced' is this edit, but it is from the John V Krepol user, so it's just blatantly self-promotion at that point.

What should be done at this point regarding this? Not sure it really warrants a page protection or anything, but the article looks like it's just being used for advertising purposes through each Krepol edit. I'm also not going to rule it out as 100% impossible, but I don't think this is sockpuppet case, each user with a different 'way' of adding info about Krepol to the article.

Any help with this issue would be appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also probably worth noting that being an audio engineer on two shows doesn't seem to be notable at all... if there were something more to it/an actual notability for including information on the person in the article, then sure, but just pointing out that they exist and had this job on the show with no real notable information on them is seemingly just promotion of them. Magitroopa (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Magitroopa. Whether this is truly one person or not, it's clearly a concerted campaign and they're only here for promotion. I've blocked the accounts and semi-protected the article for a month. Fences&Windows 00:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The below is actually nuts! Doing a dude a favor to have him remembered for his work on the show. That’s it. All the assessments are pretty ridiculous*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01D:589F:40D9:5D0D:63D:EDFB (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I re-threaded this (was originally at the top of the section) so "below" is referring to "above" now. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Involved RfC closure needs review

An involved editor closed an RfC here - they had actually !voted in it. This seems to be a situation that can't properly be resolved by discussion, so if someone could just re-review the consensus reached, thank you! The involved editor will be notified. Full clarification: I'm also WP:INVOLVED. Samsara 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara: Could you provide a link to the discussion in question. Number 57 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Yeah, sorry for omitting, was going to come back to this after notifying. Here's the link: Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze#Request_for_comments and here's the notification diff for the record. Samsara 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara: Have you contacted them to undo their close? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara:, I think it was a fair close - definately on AOC and probably on Musk; obviously participants should not be closing RfCs they !voted on, but the RfC seemed to have gone dead for a few weeks, and the closer discussed their intention to try get closure on it. Wrong process, but fine in the end. Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean it's not technically a formal close - only an uninvolved editor can do those - but it is a proper end to the RfC per WP:RFCCLOSE. The consensus there is clear and the meta discussion about the consensus is appropriate. Not every RfC needs a formal close to have done its job of showing consensus as part of the dispute resolution process. So at best we have a minor "maybe don't use the RfC close template" here but otherwise I see no problem that needs addressing here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

+1. Incredible article btw; great level of detail and fact-base on a complex subject in a very short time frame (even has the Citidel angle). wow. Britishfinance (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 thanks, that was my intent in the close. The wording on appropriate use of the "closed rfc" templates was somewhat ambiguous and I didn't err on the side of caution here, though I did not anticipate this close being controversial - or I would've requested a formal close. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this was a proper way to end the RFC per WP:RFCEND. This was nearly-unanimous, not a controversial outcome at all. Having an uninvolved editor close this discussion would have been a waste of editor time. What we call "involved closes" are OK if the outcome is clear and such involved closure should be encouraged, not discouraged, so as to save editor time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is not that it's controversial, but that it lacks detail in covering the more complex issues that were discussed. The close covers at a rough estimate 1/3 of the issues that were being raised in the discussion. Samsara 10:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No longer an emergency

More than a decade ago, death threats popped up on my watchlist — two children apparently had a fight, and one threatened the other. I wasn't aware of emergencywikimedia.org, and I was in a college class and couldn't alert local authorities, so I found an active editor in the relevant time zone and asked him to alert authorities, and the authorities handled the situation. Some time later, another admin ran across these edits and revdeleted them, since they were definitely "purely disruptive material".

Has anyone ever asked for assistance with old edits that were emergencies when they first happened, but weren't anymore? If so, what happened? I'd like to ask whoever monitors emergency@wikimedia.org, but I don't know how to reach them except by sending an email to that address, and I don't want to make them think this is an emergency. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyttend: If I'm not mistaken, Trust & Safety monitor emergency@. You should be able to reach them via cawikimedia.org . SQL^{Query me!} 18:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Email sent to ca@wikimedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth (speaking with just my admin hat on) if the edits were severe enough to merit RD when they occurred, they should probably stay revdel'd; going through a page's history and seeing people threatening other people is rather jarring, even if the acts that preceded or followed those edits are well passed. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Most anything that needs Revdel today, needs it forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:PetroAntonio?

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

---

As a result of this AN discussion, User:PetroAntonio was indefinitely blocked by User:Jehochman. He is the author of a book that is critical of Bruce Pascoe and his book Dark Emu. PetroAntonio has made unblock requests, saying he wants to be able to use the article talk pages, giving the specific example of arguing for the use of another publication critical of the Dark Emu book. I declined the first request, and I have suggested that PetroAntonio is unikely to be unblocked without a topic ban (voluntary or imposed by the community) due to a conflict of interest and prior attempts to pursue a personal agenda. The details are at User talk:PetroAntonio, where I offered to ask the community whether PetroAntonio should be subject to a topic ban. I believe he should not be unblocked without we should impose a topic ban (whether PetroAntonio is unblocked or not), so my proposal is that PetroAntonio is indefinitely banned from the topics of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu, broadly construed. (I will copy any comments/responses by PetroAntonio over to here when I can, but I'm off to bed shortly so could someone else please also keep an eye open and do it if I'm not around.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Modified - see strikes and underscores. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just to stress, as I realise I was not as clear as I intended, I am not proposing an unblock here - that remains a separate issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support topic ban, but oppose lifting indef block - I respectfully disagree with this proposal I agree with a topic ban, but object to any removal of indef ban. I see no point in a topic ban, PetroAntonio should remain indef blocked from editing Wikipedia, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to attack BLP subjects, promote his books etc, it is a disruption only account, their appalling behavior is simply off the charts.

Looking carefully at the behavior that led to their indef block:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Serious_conflict_of_interest_issues,_blatant_advocacy_and_defamation

and in particular this op-ed PetroAntonio penned offwiki in order to attack other editors (they refer to me as a sub-category of human and a dog eating its own vomit):

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/

They should remain indef blocked, their behavior here and offwiki has been totally and utterly appalling. If they are to be merely topic banned then that should be broadly construed to include all topics relating to Australian politics and specifically Aboriginal Australians and the Australian culture wars, at the very least. Though I think their behavior here has been so far beyond the pale that they should remain indef blocked. They've made numerous unblock requests yet they still have not even began to address their problematic behavior, they have not acknowledged it in any meaningful way, instead they are still carrying on about WP:NOTTHEM. I have absolutely no faith what-so-ever that they will contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we will be back here in no time if they are unblocked. Bacondrum 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I am not proposing a topic ban as a replacement for the current block (merely or otherwise), but independently of it and in addition to it (perhaps you didn't see the changes I made at 21:52?). As PetroAntonio is asking to be unblocked in order to continue editing in the same topic area, it would close that particular avenue of appeal, which I think would be useful. Whether PetroAntonio should ever be unblocked remains a separate issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Thanks for clarifying, I see what you mean (and I'd hate for you to think I was having a go at you). In that case I support the topic ban, my opposition is to removing the indef block. Bacondrum 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool ;-) And no, I understand the initial confusion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, since the editor's conduct regarding Pascoe and his book has been reprehensible and compulsive. It would take an awful lot of convincing for me to support an unblock - maybe they are also an expert in kangaroo biology and behavior or something, and could help in that topic area. But no way under the sun should this editor be allowed to edit regarding Pascoe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Austhistory99 (talk · contribs) and PetroAntonio (talk · contribs) should be topic banned—no discussion or editing related to Dark Emu or Bruce Pascoe. If Wikipedia's treatment of the topic is as obviously wrong as suggested, someone without an attack agenda will propose changes backed by secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Block

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

---

Hello this user EmanueleL187 has been warned for vandalism 3 times, 2 are automatic one are human (me) Could he get blocked? ItzJustLucky (userpage) (talk) (fighting) 16:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the user has not checked his talk page or has not replied]]. --ItzJustLucky (userpage) (talk) (fighting) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @ItzJustLucky:, I've blocked them because I happened to see this report right when it was made. But FYI, WP:AIV is a better place to report this kind of obvious no-discussion-needed vandalism, both because it is (most of the time) faster, and because it fits better with our normal workflow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info @Floquenbeam:, I didn't know where to go to report so I came here, I am still new to wikipedia. --ItzJustLucky (userpage) (talk) (fighting) 16:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, this worked out fine, and now you know. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And knowing is half the battle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Conny the Cow

Conny the Cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account on List of Dora the Explorer episodes. Already reported the user at AIV and requested page protection, but it's quit clear that a block is needed sooner than later. Quite clearly WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked. Feel free to close and/or remove this section (though page protection may still be needed...) Magitroopa (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabotage strategies and misuse of Starzoner drafts

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

Again I am forced to have to resort here to report this and this. The behavior of the user in question seems absurd to me who in his eagerness to want to be the only one who creates articles about future films resorts to this type of maneuver. In Draft:Untitled Bong Joon-ho film that I have created, the development of the next Bong Joon-ho film is better detailed, without the need to lie in the title of the draft. It is unfair for me to take the time to write an article and then @Starzoner: with a page he created months ago with another title and try to replace my draft. In addition, the titles themselves are already a fraud since at no time is it mentioned that one of those two films is a sequel to Parasite. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Here anyone can see a complete list with the thousands of subpages created by the user in order to later move them to the title he want. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Dear admins,

Let me put information here that explains the relationships between this user and me.

A While ago, I created a page at Draft:Spencer (film), which was deleted per G13. It was later re-created by another user. After I saw the news that it started filming (and subsequently was renamed to mainspace), I requested it be history merged with the now-deleted draft, but was reverted with this rather pointy edit summary. A subsequent request was later rejected.

That was only only interaction with him, when he immediately went to multiple admin talk pages behind my back here as well as here, and furthermore, and a further complaint here, to which was closed as a content dispute. (to be clear, I had self reverted my edits in the WP:AN dispute.

My second interaction was when someone elft me a talk page, and I removed it, intending to respond later, as I was rightfully called out over my a annoyance with being reverted by others. However, after I remove it, he comes on to my talk page with reverts such as this, this violation of WP:OWNTALK, and this threat of reporting to an administrator. For this, I’m sure he’s in violation of edit warring on my talk page.

I later tell him to stay off my talk page. He retorts by saying I am the unfriendly one.

Finally for 3rd time’s the charm, I had made this edit, querying a potential merge for the page, and immediately reverted, prompting the current message on this forum page. To address the initial sentence, I had batch created a bunch of pages back in July 2020, for plant pages that was listed in a prior revision of Eria, but lalter realized most of them are just simply synonyms of pages and I wasted the effort in making them, so I had decided it was worth repurposing them for other uses to create pages. As for the 2 Bong Joon ho articles, it was prompted by Bong Joon ho saying he is creating two films, one in English and one in Korean, which didn’t require him to be super aggressively bad-faithed about.

In brief, all my interactions with him is his assumptions of me in bad faith, all around, with no room of any positivity. Every single instance his painting of me as the vallain in his book.

Thus, I am requesting if possible 2 things 1) a one way interaction ban so he does not do anything to me again 2) a block for harassment and lack of civility.

Thank you. Starzoner (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: and what happened to this interaction? You only remember what is good for you. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Another bad faith attempt to cherry pick, again. Any admin reviewing the abovementioned thread should go to Archive 329 and see the closing statement by an admin. Starzoner (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator has not intervened does not mean that your action was correct, you yourself when I just reported your failed attempt to usurp my draft you deleted your draft to remove evidence. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Starzoner I have questions. First of all, why did you want Draft:Spencer (film) merged into the article, given that the one revision of the draft contains no useful information whatsoever? What on earth is the purpose of these subpages? Note: now deleted What is the point of Draft:The_Three_Musketeers_–_D’Artagnan? Or Draft:Trolls 3 (this doesn't even exist)? Or Draft:Little House on the Prairie (upcoming TV series)? Or Draft:Untitled Bond film? And Draft:2030 in film - really? I appreciate that you do eventually expand some of these hundreds of drafts, but why are you not waiting until there's something to actually write before you do? You're just making work for people who have to go through and G13 them when many of them inevitably come to nothing. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, Well, for the spencer page, I thought there was some edits there that is useful, but I can’t see them. I created some of them as I saw the news or so about people wanting to create a film or so, as you pointed out for the specific draft pages. If you want to delete them as G7 instead of G13. please do, as I do not want to burden anyone to waste their time in tagging and deleting them. That can be applied to pages such as Draft:2030 in film, and above. As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on.

I apologize for all the necessary page creation, and do invite anyone who wants to see them deleted, to actually delete them, perhaps by G7, without hesitation. Starzoner (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Starzoner from what I see your problems come from long ago (Starzoner mass page creation:32,000+ pages), it has been a long time since this report and you continue to have the same behavior. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on. And what would be the point of that, pray? It very much feels like gaming the system. And the only aspect worth gaming here that I can discern appears to be the retroactive usurpation of other people's drafts, by being able to claim the "earlier" version. Really, this is not a good look at all.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit proves your point Elmidae. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that's a little grotesque, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat it once more, since it was not clear from the messages on Graeme Bartlett's talk page. The page was in initially created by an IP, deleted, once again created by me, deleted per g7, and restored with the IP edit (that were a hoax) as initial edit. I tagged it so hoax ip edit can be chucked out, but denied by another admin, so I asked for it to be deleted and restored sans the vandal edit. So the question is, why are are fighting to restore a vandal edit? that is, if attitudes changed to vandal edits? To address the comment by Elmidae, I phrased it poorly. I prefer starting pages in my userpage rather than direct creation in draft/article space, so that it would not be tagged with G13 in the future, avoiding wasting any effort to tag as G13. Starzoner (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it that you don't realize? It is not only your request to delete certain editions that gives you away, the fact of creating draft articles that will be relevant in 10, 15 or 20 years, by itself. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I've deleted 1,258 empty subpages from Starzoner's userspace. Which only leaves the 20,000-odd plant pages. Which I'd quite happily leave there per AGF, but .. this makes me wonder. Black Kite (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I made this short list with a simple history search for Starzoner. Most deserve to be erased for their strategy of creating empty pages and then moving them whenever he want:

1. Draft:Untitled Parasite sequel 2
2. Draft:The Overstory
3. Draft:Tehek Lake
4. Draft:The Gilded Ones (TV series)
5. Draft:The Lord of the Rings (Season 1)
6. Draft:The Essex Serpent (TV series)
7. Draft:Untitled Jimmy Woo spinoff
8. Draft:The Wheel (American TV series)
9. Draft:Y: 1883
10. Draft:Untitled second Fantastic Four film
11. Draft:Untitled Gamestop documentary
12. Draft:Breakfast at Tiffany's (TV series)
13. Draft:The Serpent Queen.

Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know you *really* want but I am starting to feel unwanted harrassment because you don't have a specified end goal. I think I want to report you to the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Starzoner (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Do it, and maybe the one who ends up blocked is you due to your persistent modus operandi. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am requesting an admin or the community to hand a block to Bruno Rene Vargas for harassment and wanting to block me for little reason other than his perceived slight. Starzoner (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas, you've made your point (multiple times over) so please step back for a bit and let the admins discuss potential next steps. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite is this ok? For me it does not make sense to create this type of draft only to then redirect it and thus avoid its deletion due to inactivity. Also it has no reference. The user so far has not requested the removal of this. Starzoner only limited itself to requesting the removal of the article you cited. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It is an overreach to refer to this as "sabotage". It is entirely permissible, and even commendable, for editors to get a jump on likely future developments by initiating drafts reflecting the current state of knowledge on the subject. Redirecting such a title in mainspace is an issue for resolution at WP:RFD. That's why that board exists. BD2412 T 00:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, the point is that there is a difference between "getting a jump on a topic" (with the intention of making it easy to add incremental material) and "staking a claim on a topic" (with the intention of controlling authorship of the article). Things like the above diff, and those 1.2k blank subpages, are overall baffling, but pretty much useless for the former and readily interpreted as the latter. Maybe calling it sabotage is going too far, but it's not good practice and ought to be discontinued. Which, I hope, is kind of where we have arrived now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Closer needed

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

---

The CloserDFO

This is not a formal RfC, but it nevertheless needs someone to close it. It's overripe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Blocked account and reverting of all edits.

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

---

Hi there. I'm Jaap. My account (Wiki.Jaap) was recently blocked after a discussion with User:Praxidicae. I oppose the block, and while I might have expressed myself in a rude way, I still believe there was no reason for me to be blocked. Having been blocked, and having lost the password to my other account, I created the present account. I want to be fully transparent, as I've always been. After being blocked, several of my articles were suddenly nominated for speedy deletion. Regardless of my argument with Praxidicae and the cause of their immediate nomination, I believe the latter is undue and unjust. After having provided the articles (Narod (website) and Istrapedia) with even more sources, and deleting the speedy deletion nomination (as the creator of the article(s); and since I couldn't find a discussion/talk page where to write the reason of my opposition), my edits were reverted by User:Praxidicae. I applied for undelation, but Praxidicae removed by request. If I did anything wrong I apologize, bu is all this fair? Thanks.--William.the.Loud (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

TonyBallioni and Tks4Fish blocked and globally locked nearly 30 accounts 2 days ago after determining this user was abusively operating dozens of accounts. So that really says it all. CUPIDICAE💕 15:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@William.the.Loud: Creating new accounts while blocked certainly isn't going to help you here. SQL^{Query me!} 15:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not an emergency, and OP should be blocked for evasion. --Yamla (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the word "emergency" from the header. I'd rather not risk someone thinking this is something it's not. Perryprog (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What SQL said. I good way to prove you deserve to be blocked is to evade your block to ask to be unblocked. Although a global lock would be more difficult to appeal than a normal block, evading your block to appeal to AN is definitely not a suitable method of appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

New essay

I've created WP:Two wrongs don't make a right, which may perhaps be of interest to editors and admins who read here. I'd like to particularly recommend it to admins who deal with complex and seemingly intractable disputes that generate walls-of-text. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Referring to the less common but simpler situation of a true boomerang that you mention, it consists of throwing that interesting weapon at a kangaroo that isn't there. I have seen that a few times recently. It is more satisfying than the complex situations that you describe. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. (For some comic relief in that vein, see: File:Fun Fail.gif.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

Several motions have been proposed on the Committee's public motions page relating to Case Workshops. These proposed motions change how Workshops are run and used, including making it optional. These motions will modify the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Editors are welcome and encouraged to make comments in the "Community discussion" sections for each motion. A running total of votes for each motion can be viewed in the implementation notes section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss the motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Case Workshops. Discuss this notice at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

Merger debate

Given apparently Middlesbrough isn't allowed a borough article according to the talk page. I think we should merge Darlington, Stockton and Hartlepool Borough pages with the town article and have villages and towns in them listed in a wards tab. Then that solves the argument. I think it is pointless and silly to say no to a borough article for Middlesbrough yet Darlington which borough article covers the town and surrounding suburbs can boast a wiki page and Hartlepool which has a small borough in size comparison to Stockton and Middlesbrough. It states the council were Middlesbrough Borough Council before becoming just Middlesbrough Council and so the borough exists. Just without its own article to mention the wards and council size of mps. An argument not worth having as there is plenty of evidence about the borough. I will only accept the census of if Middlesbrough loses its page for borough so does Darlington and Hartlepool. They unlike Stockton don't have any notable towns. So in theory only Stockton could boast a borough pages as it covers numerous towns. Yet not Middlesbrough, Darlington or Hartlepool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. May I suggest raising this at Wikipedia:WikiProject England? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Tokyointernationalschool5484

The same account sockpuppet of user User:Tokyointernationalschool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver1500 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by administrator Red Phoenix. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin request for Edit Filter Managment (ProcrastinatingReader)

User:ProcrastinatingReader has opened a discussion to request Edit filter manager access. EFM access is occasionally granted to experienced and trusted editors that volunteer to help in this area. Anyone interested is welcome to join in the discussion at: WP:EFN. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle blocking now allows blocking the /64 instead, and link to RfPP when protecting

There are two changes to Twinkle I wanted to make sysops aware of:

1. When blocking an IPv6 address, you should now have the option to just block the /64 range instead.​ It's a simple checkbox, so you've got the option to do so if you like. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
2. Thanks to GorillaWarfare, when protecting a page, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.

These changes should be live now. Please ping me if there are any issues; as always bug reports, suggestions, etc. welcome at WT:TW or GitHub! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Two very helpful features. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm so excited about this /64 functionality. Thanks for all your hard work, Amorymeltzer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh this is great, thank you! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very helpful. All we need now is a big, friendly button on the Special:Contributions page to quickly show all the /64 contributions of an IPv6 editor. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A button would be handy but you can just add "/64" to the IP address as shown, then press Enter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I bet that'd be pretty straightforward to do with a userscript... maybe I'll poke around at doing it tonight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It could probably be added to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon though that's a little less visible. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More than a few clicks, but opening Twinkle's block module does now provide a link to the /64 contribs page in a new tab/window. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for accommodating my laziness. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required on COVID?

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

---

Question regarding the Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Coronavirus_disease_2019#Application_notes sub-section, which was cited to me at the Wuhan article. It says Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page., which is effectively a consensus required restriction across the COVID topic area. It was approved by consensus here. The meaning of the section was questioned in exactly this manner by PackMecEng at the time but their question wasn't answered. None of this is announced on any of the talk notices or editnotices, which is standard for consensus required restrictions, and as far as I know no admin is enforcing it (certainly there's no such enforcement in the sanctions log). So, what exactly is this? Is this consensus/restriction actually in force and should it be added to the notices, or is it effectively abandoned and should the sub-section be removed? My feeling is that it was rashly decided and the latter applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's "disputed" content, to me, seems to more read as if it's saying "if you get reverted, don't reinstate" (or seek consensus beforehand) - basically a 1RR phrasing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, that's just WP:ONUS. This is "actually in force" in all articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence yes, but the 2nd sentence seems distinct from ONUS to me. It reads like standard consensus required phrasing that you’d find in eg Template:American politics AE ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, first sentence is a restarting of onus while the second is basically consensus required with an extra removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale. PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Actually another key difference is it says "should not" rather than "must" not. (While the consensus required supplement doesn't say either, it does say "must demonstrate consensus" as you would expect. Likewise the template {{Gs/talk notice}} and {{American politics AE}} use the phrasing "must obtain consensus". IMO "should not" turns it from consensus required to consensus very very strongly encouraged. Or the difference between 'if you do this, you're wrong (subject to very rare exceptions)' and 'if you do this, you're extremely likely in the wrong' That said, I agree that I'm not sure the wording is helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the wording (ie "should" vs "must") was carefully thought out and is intentional. Either these are general sanctions (the first paragraph a sourcing restriction, and the second paragraph a consensus required restriction), and should be noted as such, or if they're "should"s then they're both redundant to WP:BRD and WP:MEDRS and the text should be removed from the general sanctions page, since it wouldn't be a general sanction. Reading over the discussion my feeling is that the intent wasn't to actually create any general sanctions. Although, a "no preprints or non-peer-reviewed sources for medical content" general sanction in COVID seems like a decent idea. Not sure about the consensus required restriction, though; that's very broad. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Post-unarchive break

Unarchived the above, which was automatically archived. I'd appreciate clarification on this, since RexxS is accusing me of "forum shopping" for asking the above question here at AN rather than at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 (which would be a local consensus). AN is the standard venue for GS clarifications. He is threatening sanctions for opening a discussion at AN.

Linking in discussions WT:GS/COVID & template & TfD #1 & TfD #2. I've consulted with multiple ArbCom clerks, including @L235 and Callanecc about this, as well. My understanding is DS editnotices are only used when page-specific sanctions are in force (such as 1RR) to communicate those. This is in line with WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page and is the status quo for all discretionary sanctions areas except COVID. The discussion proposing authorised standard discretionary sanctions, and the proposing clerk said their intent was not to exceptionally create an editnotice. The template was deleted by Primefac following the linked TfD. RexxS has unilaterally undeleted it (see the second linked discussion).

As I see it, two clarifications are needed here:

1. Is 1RR/Consensus Required in force on COVID-19 articles?
2. Should COVID articles warn of DS in the editnotice, unlike any other DS?

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To add, in my view 1RR/CR would be detrimental. It is not currently enforced and it has never been communicated in an editnotice (which would be required). Adding these two sanctions would be highly detrimental to preventing drive-by POV pushing and the like. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I'm not sure what you mean by it is not currently enforced and it has never been communicated in an editnotice. I've applied Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 misinformation by China last month. El_C 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: You've manually applied 1RR on a particular article. That's obviously okay, as a discretionary sanction. RexxS is claiming there's a topic-wide 1RR (a general sanction, akin to Israel-Palestine) in force. Editors break 1RR on COVID articles all the time. It has never been enforced; it couldn't possibly be because it's not communicated on editnotices (not even on the Template:COVID19 GS editnotice template), so it would be unfair to sanction editors for that. Indeed, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 shows exactly 0 sanctions for this (ctrl-f for "1RR"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Indeed, not even in ARBPIA pages, per WP:ARBPIA4's amendments, there's no longer 1RR by default. Not anywhere. It has to be deemed necessary for that particular page first. That is the longstanding practice in DS/GS. An edit notice must be attached to notify contributors when sanctions are put into effect. El_C 02:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic slightly, but isn't 1RR default in the 'area of conflict' for ARBPIA per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe default in the sense of only whenever a 1RR editnotice is added...? I, at least, do not add 1RR editnotices to ARBPIA pages without there being a need to do so. Many such pages simply do not need it. That is, there can be an ARBPIA page that gets ECP'd due to non-tenured user disruption, but still may exhibit no edit warring happening among the regulars there. So, what's the point of adding 1RR, then? El_C 03:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: "RexxS is claiming there's a topic-wide 1RR". That's a deliberate misquote. I said very clearly that the text in WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes looks a lot like 1RR to me. That text resulted from a community debate at AN and is quite a strong restriction, although not exactly 1RR or 'consensus required'. It makes sense to warn editors when restrictions are in place, and your continual pointless attempts to frustrate that process has become tendentious.

"Editors break 1RR on COVID articles all the time. It has never been enforced." Another fabrication. There are 800+ COVID-19 articles and not enough admins to patrol all of them. But you are downright wrong to think that it is not enforced, although I find warning and inviting the editor to self-revert is very effective at stopping the behaviour. If you don't believe it is enforced, break the restriction on a c=COVID-19 article and see how long it takes for you to be sanctioned. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a much broader issue. ProcrastinatingReader is not an admin and no experience of administering sanctions. That is not a problem in itself, but it becomes a problem when they make changes to the functionality of templates used by admins in sanctions enforcement against the advice of an admin who uses them.

ProcrastinatingReader decided to rationalise the diverse sanctions templates by consolidating them all into Module:Sanctions. That is a good intention, but ProcrastinatingReader took the opportunity to unilaterally impose their own view that editnotices cannot be used on articles under general sanctions unless a page-specific sanction is also in place. That seems to be based on the faulty conclusion that because editnotices are required when page-specific sanctions exist, they must be prohibited where only the general sanctions are in place.

That hamstrings admins working in the COVID-19 area where we sometimes find it useful to add an editnotice to an article that has no extra page-specific restrictions, simply because of an influx of editors new to the topic area who would benefit from a notice cautioning them that they may be liable to be sanctioned for failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." In other words, a warning to be on their best behaviour. The discussion at AN that authorised the general sanctions is here.

Furthermore a later discussion at AN resulted in the addition of the text "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." to the page documenting the procedures for general sanctions covering COVID-19, WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019.

On that page, the text reads: "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." That doesn't limit the editnotices to articles with page-specific sanctions, but rather implies that edit notices are expected to be used on all pages subject to the COVID-19 sanctions.

Despite all of the above, and despite my clear explanation of that, ProcrastinatingReader made the new template {{gs/editonotice}} so that it could not be used unless additional sanctions were in place. I was ill with COVID-19 in October and November, otherwise I would have noticed, but ProcrastinatingReader created a TfD in November 2020, which was closed by Primefac as "replace and deprecate", but did not mention that they had altered the functionality of the new template compared with the old one, in order to enforce their personal opinion about the use of the template.

There is no clarification needed on the questions posed above. The status of the general sanctions on the COVID-19 area is laid out at WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. The explicit use of '1RR' and 'Consensus required' for pages under GS is authorised for use at an admin's discretion by the discussions at AN I linked above. Similarly, the use of editnotices is authorised at an admin's discretion, and that should not be subverted by a non-admin who decided to impose their mistaken view by changes to template/module coding.

I find that behaviour deceptive and a misuse of their template editor permission, and I will later prepare a motion to sanction ProcrastinatingReader for their behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is misleading. I created the module (not edited something existing to 'enforce my views') and coded the current behaviour, not by unilateral decision but by consulting the community in several AN and TfD discussions throughout 2020 (some of which are linked in OP), and by consulting ArbCom clerks (some diffs are linked). Anyone who has paid attention to AN in 2020 can attest to that. The behaviour I coded when I created the module was in line with the clarity I got from those discussions. I never object to community scrutiny of my actions or clarification on matters from the community at AN. Your attempts to discourage me from bringing this to AN prior, and your dismissal of these issues above ("There is no clarification needed on the questions posed above."), appears like an attempt to avoid consensus and community scrutiny and comes across as unbecoming of an admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding RexxS, they're saying that an admin may place a mainspace and/or article talk page editnotices to any pages covered by the topic area without there needing to be any page-level sanctions being in effect. Like, informationally. Do I got this right? Because I do this all the time. El_C 03:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: that's exactly my point. If I use my admin discretion to place a simple, unadorned, editnotice warning that editors should be on their best behaviour, I don't expect some template-coder to make the template that I've always used for the job non-functional. It's unacceptable that admins discretion is having to play second-fiddle to the whims of coders.

@ProcrastinatingReader: Nothing I wrote was misleading. You coded the behaviour of that module to suit your views and altered the behaviour of the previous template. That's not your decision to make. You neglected to disclose the change of functionality in the TfD and that is indisputably deceptive.

Consensus is already established by the previous AN discussions I linked. I warned you that pushing the issue would leave your actions open to scrutiny, and that will happen. I have shown the reasons why I dismiss your two questions as misleading, and I object to you besmirching my conduct, as I have taken no admin actions in this matter so far. --RexxS (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You undeleted a template deleted via TfD, which is an admin action. And to be frank, you're very combative, which is strange for an admin. It's difficult to even understand your concerns because you escalated a discussion, in your second response, with threats and baseless accusations of conduct issues, forum shopping, TPE abuse, going against an admin, etc etc. When they're patently false - I've engaged in countless discussions on this. Most editors are open to discussion: people discuss, we reason, we work things out. You seem to immediately escalate, and not just in this case. I think that's unbecoming of an admin, and I think you should change your approach to communication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyway (again) I'd like to hear from the community, and hope this doesn't get archived without resolution, both on the content matter and on conduct, and am (of course) happy with my own conduct being scrutinised. As always, I appreciate feedback on how to handle situations better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hoping to duck from under all of this tension, much of the details pertaining to which I admittedly haven't fully grasped. But I will note that for every editnotice that I place which signifies a page-level sanction being put into effect, I probably place ten informational (unadorned) ones that simply tell contributors that the page falls under this or that DS/GS topic area, and that sanctions may follow if and/or when these are deemed necessary El_C 04:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking about different things, El C, can you give an example? A skim of your logs going back to 2017 I don't see any examples of you doing that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: That is wrong again. The template was never deleted, and the AfD close was never to delete, but to replace and deprecate. I simply reverted the edit that stopped it working. That is an action that does not require administrator permissions, and I repeat I have taken no admin actions in that matter. I'll therefore ask you now to confirm that you are wrong and strike your accusation. Nothing I've said is false. You've not linked a single discussion that supports your view that your coding decisions should overrule my admin decisions. --RexxS (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Apologies, I have struck that part. I still believe in the rest of the paragraph, however. WP:ADMINCOND doesn't just relate to use of admin permissions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, for me, I'm talking about (informational) article talk page editnotices only. I, myself, don't bother with unadorned mainspace ones, though I do realize they exist as such. I presume other admins may make use of them, though. Stands to reason, but I'm not sure I've actually seen them displayed as such (at least I've no immediate recollection of this). Anyway, as an example of the former, there's the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} article talk page editnotice versus {{Ds/talk notice|topic=a-i}} — or there's its {{American politics AE}} counterpart versus {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}}. El_C 04:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement contains 3 page restrictions, and is a general sanction. Similar for Template:American politics AE, which contains two page restrictions (1RR + CR). There is no ArbCom standardised template which allows for DS-only editnotice notification. Heck, until October that wasn't even really possible: the Template:Ds/editnotice output didn't work for DS-only since it's not meant to (not my doing, before someone asks, that template's managed by the clerks). Apologies if unclear. I think I'd prefer to add less of my own voice here, since it's already a long discussion, so others can get involved, particularly the arb clerks (Kevin et al) who probably have most insight in this opaque area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I think above you're conflating between article talk page editnotices and mainspace ones. Look at my comment above yours. There, I contrast the former article talk page editnotices that outline page-level sanctions with Ds/talk notices. El_C 05:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that the edit notice under discussion is a message that is displayed above the edit box when an editor edits a page. The talk page notices you are referring to are shown on the talk page itself. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. But I was discussing something else related to this matter. El_C 12:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If the question is @ me, El C, the talk notices have no filters. So, if you're talking about the setup on pages like Talk:Donald Trump, then that works as you expect if you place the talk notice as an editnotice on talk pages in the same way. RexxS is talking about the mainspace ones (as described in the TfDs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, again, I know. My point had to do with informational (unadorned) editnotices versus ones announcing page-level sanctions on article talk pages, as well. But since my point seems to have been lost to the ether (in my mind, too!), this thread indent has probably done all it could. El_C 12:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies; you had mentioned "the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} article talk page editnotice", but as far as I can tell, there is no "Template:Editnotices/Page/" subpage or "Template:Editnotices/Group/" subpage that is transcluding that template for an editnotice in the Talk namespace, which confused me. Thanks for clarifying. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I've spent a few minutes trying to work out what is going on but it's pretty opaque. I believe RexxS is saying that the old Template:COVID19 GS editnotice could be used to provide standard text for the edit notice of an article, but the new replacement Template:Gs/editnotice does not work (sometimes? always?). I don't know if my experiment shows the problem under discussion, but I tried an edit notice for COVID-19 pandemic in Arizona. To do that, I edited Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic in Arizona and previewed the old wikitext ({{COVID19 GS editnotice}}) and the new ({{Gs/editnotice|topic=covid}}). The old wikitext gave the expected edit notice but the new gave "Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required." I got the same results for an edit notice on the talk page. Is the issue that the new module has some code to check if an edit notice is "allowed" and purposefully fails if it thinks it is not? If that's the case, I don't know why I can't see somewhere that ProcrastinatingReader has said that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've encountered the same problem recently, too. But I just switched to the updated (COVID) editnoice and all was well. Unless this is a very recent development (days rather than weeks), then I plead ignorance. El_C 04:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that is pretty much an accurate description, I think. It's been like that since I created the module in July. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, since reading this over it seems you may mean I should've said this also in the TfDs also. To be clear: I did make this point explicitly in this TfD, linked into the broader TfD which included the COVID templates, saying that some of the usages would change to {{Gs/editnotice}} and others would be removed in line with the prior TfD consensus (which I linked in). My proposal in the nomination was slightly complex, since I intended for the templates to be handled slightly differently, so I tried to describe each case. In the end, it was deprecate all that gained consensus (which was probably the simpler option). I didn't actually enact the TfD results anyway, and the nomination had scrutiny from AN (where it was linked) and both were open for ~1 month each. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As described in the documentation, {{Gs/editnotice}} is designed to be used "only on pages with restrictions to notify editors of those restrictions. Its presence is required to enforce page-level restrictions. Editnotices should not be used on articles where only discretionary sanctions are authorised." Thus a restriction must be specified as a parameter, or else the error message you described will be shown. This is similar to {{Ds/editnotice}}, where a restriction must be listed (or the template will show "You must adhere to some restriction or another"). I appreciate there were differences in opinion when this was discussed last September on whether or not edit notices should be placed on articles for which no specific sanctions had been imposed yet, but were just under the scope of the authorized general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: would you be kind enough, please, to link the discussion you refer to? I know of no discussion that authorised a change to the current practice.

My complaint is not about the accuracy of the documentation describing the functioning of {{Gs/editnotice}}, but that {{Gs/editnotice}} needlessly removes the functionality of {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, which could be used on COVID-related articles that didn't have page-specific sanctions. The mistake was to assume that community-imposed sanctions had the same procedures as AbrCom-imposed sanctions. They don't. WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 requires "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." there's no differentiation between pages with or without page-specific sanctions.

More importantly, and unlike ArbCom-imposed sanctions, the COVID-19 sanctions explicitly include two specific restrictions on all pages subject to the sanction, namely a requirement to adhere to MEDRS sourcing standards and a restriction on reinstating challenged content (not exactly a 1RR or "consensus required", but something similar). It is important that admins working in the COVID-19 area should be able to use their discretion to add an editnotice warning editors of the general sanctions. As an admin working in the COVID-19 area, I find it unacceptable that my ability to act should be circumvented by a decision made by a non-admin changing the functionality of a template/module without any broad community discussion. --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have previously read and understood your concerns. I was just replying to Johnuniq's question on the design intent of the {{Gs/editnotice}}. I was not involved in the discussions enacting the original authorization for general sanctions, nor in all of the subsequent related discussions, so I don't know what consensus agreements may or may not have been reached. I participated in Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice § Changing this template; I don't feel a consensus was reached in that discussion, which is why I said that different points of view were expressed. As an aside, the wording you quote regarding the edit notice was introduced in January 2021; it used to say that pages "can be tagged with {{COVID19 sanctions}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} may be created." However for purposes of this discussion, the distinction isn't very significant. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The text you quote wasn't added by consensus, or by the closing admin. It was unilaterally added by a 'non-admin'. So that's a strange thing to rely on for as a show of consensus, compared to the various other discussions linked above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Your "unilaterally" diff shows an edit to WP:GS/COVID19 on 17 March 2020. That was 11 months ago and has not been challenged as far as I can see. The WP:AN discussion (permalink) behind the general sanctions did not require any specific wording and claims that a page-specific remedy must be provided in an edit notice are bogus. It's fine to argue that a generic edit notice is bad, but it is not fine to replace a template with something that operates in a different manner because of a personal conviction. At the very least, there should have been a large notice of the fact that the proposed replacement involved a fundamental change in how the template worked. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It was challenged in June, some time before I picked up on it. diff. Restrictions always have to be announced in the editnotice, otherwise it's not fair to sanction editors who probably didn't even know about the restriction. The replacement was mentioned in the TfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Your diff appears to be an objection to a very different version of the template which featured a gigantic "You will be blocked if you disrupt this page." At any rate, if proposing a replacement for a template, it is necessary to spell out that it's not actually a replacement, it's a new procedure which does not work in the same way. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq: (In fact, I don't know why we have any editnotice unless specific page restrictions have been imposed by an administrator, like with the standard DS implementation, but that's a different issue.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader There are a lot of reasons why editnotices are used like this on articles not under sanction - the most common, on articles, where a particular non-useful edit is being made by many editors, to warn them not to use it (hidden text can work for this, but many tend to ignore it). Go and attempt to edit Chris Morris (satirist) for an example. On talk pages, I have regularly used one to say "Hi - lots of people have come here to say this article should say X, and you can read the reasons why it's not going to say X here, so plase don't ask again - thank you". Or even just to say "Please go and read the FAQ on this page before you type anything". Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yup, those (like the one at Chris Morris (satirist)) are normal and very useful, I agree. I've added a few of those myself in response to template-protected edit requests (I also created {{FAQ editnotice}} to help with the Sushant Singh Rajput issues). But this thread is specifically about mainspace discretionary sanctions editnotices on articles where no restrictions apply - those are not standard (which is why I nominated them for deletion in September and November of last year). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: No, this thread has nothing to do with "discretionary sanctions editnotices" (which result from ArbCom decisions). It is purely about general sanctions editnotices (which result from community decisions), and your drive to conflate the two to create a false "standardisation", where two different sets of sanctions function differently, has resulted in your coding decisions altering the functionality of a template to prevent it being used in the way it previously was. You had no mandate to override community decisions and community-sanctioned practice, and if you can't understand that, you should be editing sensitive templates or modules. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I have referred the conduct elements of this to the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Non-admin close

I'm not comfortable with the non-admin close of this discussion, in Special:Diff/1008062685 by Only in death, which presents conclusions that I don't think are true and not even established as fact by uninvolved editors in the discussion. For example, the fact that the 'change' was disclosed in the TfD (which are centralised consensus discussions for templates). In any case, the conduct elements, and this very issue, is before ArbCom and the section above was created for clarity on a content issue. Though I agree this section is probably unlikely to lead to anything productive on the content front anymore, I don't believe the comments in the NAC close reflect the discussion and so request that close be reverted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Or if you would prefer a longer answer: It is a matter of editing practice and clearly adhered to by almost everyone guidelines that 1. if you want to make a change that has wide-ranging consequences, you need to spell out in advance those consequences. 2. If you ignore/miss in error those consequences, when they are pointed out, you need to seek consensus to make them. If you can point to a discussion where in advance of you making those changes, you clearly stated the functionality would change, and gained agreement for that change, then I will be happy to remove that part. However from the discussion here, and at the talkpage of the templates, there does not appear to be any evidence of that. Lastly once you have referred something to arbcom, any further discussion here at this time is fruitless, as the core issue is not the behaviour of Rexx (which is how you framed your arbcom submission) but the functionality of templates which does not require any admin action at this time, and can be sufficiently resolved through a proper RFC on the templates themselves. The principle that if you do not understand something, you should not be doing it, is also long-standing practice, and with regards to advanced permissions, can be enforced by removal of the ability to do it. Consider it a reminder. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to an admin closing it writing that the section is not going anywhere and that ArbCom will decide on the issue, but that's not what you wrote. A non-admin should not be closing discussions at AN/ANI with their conclusions, especially not one currently at arbitration, so I think an admin should revert that close. To your question, if you read my case statement the TfDs, and the exact quote, is given, but that's not really material to the fact that you shouldn't be closing the discussion; if you have comments to add, please add them as comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom will not decide on the issue of the templates. They act on conduct. This issue is not at arbitration. If you want a decision on the template issue, go open an RFC which clearly lays out the differences between the previous version and what you think it should not carry forward and make your case for it. Please stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember a couple years ago there was a complaint against an admin at ANI that had been closed like three times, and the three closers ended up being named parties to the subsequent arbcom case, and some of them were admonished for their closure. OID's closing statement reads to me like a !vote. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

IPBE request

• PEIsquirrel (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Requesting IP block exemption for my alt account (I am Ivanvector (talk · contribs), see both user pages for confirmations). Someone seems to have been up to something on my home ISP that got it IP-blocked, and as a matter of principle admins should not grant themselves permissions IMO. My mobile provider doesn't seem to be affected, hence this note here rather than UTRS. TIA. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done for a year. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin to review a WP:RM close

Hi. During a trawl of the request move backlog, I made a bold close (as no consensus to move) on this discussion a day or two ago. I was asked to review it, so I self-reverted. Is there someone who has a spare moment to (re)evaluate, and doesn't mind taking a second look at this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to stabilise/protect

For the last few moths at least, controversial figure Robin DiAngelo's page has been repeatedly vandalised or otherwise edited out of compliance with WP:BLP. It should probably be protected on some level. --Pitke (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I blocked an account and applied pending changes protection for 2 years. Hopefully that's enough to prevent the disruption. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

Request for review

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

---

• Lilipo25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Awoma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LGB Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a review of my actions with regard to a dispute between Lilipo25 and Awoma at the LGB Alliance page. Lilipo25 pinged me to ask for my input in this discussion on her talk page. I reviewed the talk page threads and the editing, and gave my opinion here. Awoma is clearly not satisfied with my resonse, and has repeatedly accused me of bias and ignoring abuse, and has ignored my suggestion that they ask for review here, preferring to continue adding sarcastic snark on Lilipo's talk page. Other discussions that are potentially relevant context are at:

• Talk:Graham_Linehan/Archive_4
• User_talk:Awoma#Important_Notice
• Potentially also User_talk:Girth_Summit#Hounding, which involves Lilipo and another editor at LGB Alliance, but not Awoma

I've done my utmost to remain even handed and encourage civil discourse, but in the face of continued accusations of bias I would welcome a review. Thanks in advance for anyone willing to read through and offer their perspective. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you've accidentally missed a few things. Here's a few more examples of you excusing Lilipo's mistreatment of other editors: [8] [9] [10] Awoma (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Not accidental Awoma, but your continued use of sarcasm is disappointing. I didn't think that stuff from last year, involving different articles, was relevant. Since you think it is, and I can see that from your perspective it would be, I am content for all of those discussions to be reviewed as well. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No sarcasm at all. Apologies for assuming it was accidental. Looks like you deliberately missed a few things. Awoma (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how someone accidentally misses "a few more examples of you (I.E. themselves) excusing Lilipo's mistreatment of other editors". Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor me. Awoma (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

But you're the one who said it. So what are you trying to say? Did you mean to say "forgot about" rather than 'accidentally missed'? Or are you trying to say, "I wrote that but now that I re-read it I realise it makes no sense, I don't know what I was thinking". I haven't really looked into the dispute but it's not surprising people are frustrated with you if it's the norm for you to say stuff that makes no sense and then when queried about it further confuse the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I assumed that the omission was accidental. Girth Summit has since corrected me: it wasn't accidental. Do let me know if you're still confused. Awoma (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Awoma has effectively only been here six months, but that's certainly long enough to get the feel of the place. And while communication is important, having 76% of edits to talk pages does not wholly suggest a focus on building the encyclopedia. Conversations such as this ("If you could just leave that page alone for a bit, that would be great") and remarks such as "Have you ever been so liberal", a willingness to edit-war while demanding BRD be obeyed, while this discussion has more gaslighting the 1890 Ideal Home Exhibition. (E.g., If you could respond to the actual content of my argument that would be far preferred (in response to Lilipo25 doing precisely that) and Please discuss the actual proposal (to which Lilipo25 responded "Oh, for heaven's sake, I WAS discussing your proposal!"), and then, having been told that discussion with Awoma was "exhausting", called this a personal attack).

And that's ignoring the trolling in this very discussion ("Do let me know if you're still confused"? Oh, really).

WP:ADVOCACY would seem to apply, if nothing else does. (But what else could? Ah, COI, WP:TEND and WP:DE.) ——Serial 14:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I contribute on talk pages primarily because my experience on wikipedia is that every article has a couple of editors who consider the article "theirs" and will revert any change which is made. As such, I focus on bringing up issues and suggesting improvements to articles on respective talk pages, and contributing to RfCs. I have found this to be much more useful and worthwhile. With regards my repeated requests that Lilipo engage with a proposal, you claim that they were "doing exactly that", but anyone here can read the thread and see that they weren't. They were taking issue with me having said "LGB Alliance exists to oppose transgender rights" which was not part of my proposal. The claim that "having been told that discussion with Awoma was "exhausting" (Awoma) called this a personal attack" is again just not true. Lilipo didn't call the discussion exhausting. They called me exhausting. It's there on the page - anyone can read it. I already have very little faith that there are any decent admins on here, and comments like this with mistruths and smearing don't exactly help that impression. Awoma (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Post-closure note for anyone reviewing the discussions above. I have realised that there is a comment missing from the discussion in the Graham Lineham talk page archive. I reverted Awoma's first comment, which I saw as being too close to a personal attack on other editors, but allowed their revised version to remain. The full discussion is in the talk page history. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that I have blocked Awoma for one week for engaging in egregious personal attacks. Re-closing. El_C 18:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

IP needs blocking

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

---

Special:Contributions/73.39.203.154 (already blocked) needs a talk-page block too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator impersonation

Just a heads up, there have already been at least three instances today of a new account copying the username of a current or former admin but with a lowercase "l" switched to an uppercase "I"; duplicating or redirecting their user page and talk page; and/or tampering with the UAA reports to make it look like the real admin was being reported. See GeneraINotability, Reaper EternaI, and RIevse. Please be on the lookout. Best, DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Reaper EternaI is globally locked already; the other two I've blocked, probably want a Global lock too. Let us know if you see any others. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GeneraINotability 's been locked now. If your username has an 'l' in it, it's worth registering a doppelganger account that uses an uppercase i to prevent impersonation by vandals. Pahunkat (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't antispoof supposed to prevent this kind of thing...? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The maintainers of AntiSpoof do not believe that it should block this, and have refused to use the confusables.txt file that is provided by Unicode for this purpose. This is not by far the only such example. ST47 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I am now immensely curious as to their reasons, as surely this is precisely what AntiSpoof is intended to prevent... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds familiar! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) to discuss establishing a community based desysop policy. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Fake election sandboxes

An ongoing AN discussion on Commons about fake election maps has led me to discover that there is a large contingent of users who have been using Wikipedia solely as a webhost for their alternate history/politics games for the last several years. Comments from several of them on that thread indicate that they are using Wikipedia to use templates like {{infobox election}} that aren't available on Wikia and other appropriate venues, and thus use Commons to host their images.

Some typical users of this type:

• NonConfirmatory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 47 edits, all to User:NonConfirmatory/sandbox
• Zeksora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 6 edits, all to User:Zeksora/sandbox
• Spcresswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 1013 edits, 99% of them to several hundred sandbox pages

This is a troubling misuse of Wikipedia and Commons as a web host. There is a risk of the fake elections being mistaken for real - I have removed several fake files from mainspace articles. The consistent use of user sandboxes to avoid detection, identical image types used on Commons, and comments on Commons indicate that there is some level of coordination by users on off-Wikipedia sites.

Looking at uses of the election infobox in userspace, there are over a thousand usages; from a random selection, half or more are blatantly fake and not intended as drafts of real articles. Such sandboxes can be speedily deleted as U5. I think it's also worth discussing whether there should be an effort to actively discourage or prevent these users from misusing Wikipedia in this way, given the risk of false information being mistaken for real, and the amount of volunteer time it takes to find and delete the false information later. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, there is a recurring problem with users uploading to Commons fantasy or hoax flags for political entities that do not have an official flag, which are then linked into the infoboxes for the enWiki articles about those entities (see here for example, where a fake flag has been added to the article on Duarte Province, Dominican Republic, at least three times). Again, considerable volunteer time is expended verifying that the flags are indeed fake, and then getting Commons to act on them. - Donald Albury 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm here to discuss my excessive sandboxes. ~ Spcresswell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 21 February 2021

I want to stress that I had no idea that my hobby was causing so many problems. I agree that my sandboxes can be seen as misleading by those who view them that aren't me. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I will cease the sandboxes. Sorry for the problems I have caused. ~ Spcresswell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 21 February 2021

(I had invited them and am happy to see this) No worries, and thank you very much for the answer. We can delete them all per your requests; I have just not done so yet because the pages are currently under discussion here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to delete them all. Sorry once again and thanks for being so patient. ~ Spcresswell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 21 February 2021

@Spcresswell: Thanks for understanding. Out of curiosity, do you know why there would be many people doing this sort of thing? Like is there some website which encourages people to create such pages on Wikipedia? It seems strange to me that multiple people would have similar notions of using Wikipedia for this. (And it's not just politics -- people have fabricated whole seasons of Big Brother, Ru Paul's Drag Race, etc. in userspace, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites Hi. I think that a large number of people do it both with and without Wikipedia because ultimately, it is a work of ficiton and stuff like politics is fun to experiment with. I was using it for personal use only. However, there are at least two websites and forums where people share altered election infoboxes like the ones I created. While not all users use Wikipedia tables or boxes, a sizeable amount do. Would I be allowed to share a link to the two websites? ~ Spcresswell (talk)

Donald Albury, another false flag to look out for is that of Svalbard. Svalbard doesn't have flag, but the internet has tried to fix that quite a few times. GPinkerton (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton The instances I've worked on cleaning up include List of Dominican Republic flags, Districts of The Bahamas, and various micronations. TU-nor found fake flags being used for local government divisions of a number of nations. See User talk:TU-nor#Flags of districts of the Bahamas for a discussion of cases of fake flags they had found. There does not appear to have been wholesale addition of fake flags for local divisions of the Dominican Republic since the last batch was cleared out almost two years ago, but that was the fourth time such fake flags had been removed. In the past, fake flags have returned to that list every one to five years, so they may be back again. I have no idea whether fake flags are currently a problem for other nations. - Donald Albury 13:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the fictitious Svalbard flags are popular for adding to articles. In general, fake flags at Commons is a pain in you-know-where. It is difficult to get them removed, but it helps to put a {{fictitious flag}} tag, which I just did for Commons:File:Jan Mayen.png. --T*U (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've nominated the other two editors' sandboxes for MfD, which, of course, doesn't preclude them from being speedied by an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not the first time this has been an issue. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Commons_admin_needed, which resulted in the deletion of over 400 images, mainly on Commons, but some locally as well. I've run into a few other issues of fake electoral maps as well, and have generally responded by PRODding the images or tagging them for G3. This sort of thing is a definite WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Hog Farm _Talk 07:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I suspect this is a wide issue covering tonnes of (broadly defined) fandom: the mention of fake seasons of Ru Paul's Drag Race rings a bell, because I know that there has been Eurovision "fakes" and similar spotted before. I think that if you've got a well established Nation States thing going on and quickly need election results for your blog, then Wikipedia is the best place to go for free. Wikia has nothing like the templates Wikipedia has, and Microsoft Word or equivalent doesn't quite look the same. It may well be that you've lifted only one stone here, there could be countless examples. doktorb _words^deeds 16:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I've found quite a few fake election infoboxes with a brief search - many of them are clearly U5-able, but many are not by a strict reading of the criterion (includes "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages"). To avoid backlogging MfD into next month, should we make a determination that these sort of things are explicitly covered by U5? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly support explicitly declaring these under the purview of U5. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• :Be careful with this, sometimes what looks like a fake election box might be a mock-up using deliberately fake data. I would say a better response would be to create a template called {{mock-up}} that can be used on any user-space page (other than the main user page) to alert other editors and viewers that the "informational content" is dummy data. If the editor does not add the box within a reasonable period of time, then {{db-hoax}} the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC) see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Hoax/sandbox updated to allow for "intentional fake data" outside of "mainspace," discuss at Template talk:Hoax#Proposed changes (permalink). This should discourage people using user-space drafts for "fake pages intended to be taken as real" since any intentional use would be labeled with "This page contains placeholder information and should not be considered accurate." Courtesy ping to @Firefly:. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem of users misusing Wikipedia as a web host, nor the fake images they upload to Commons to illustrate them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

From my experience, it's often reasonably easy to tell who's playing games and who's doing test data. If you're running it as test data, you'll have legitimate edits to actual elections. If you're playing games in your sandbox, then you won't have many legitimate election edits outside of the sandbox. With these, I'd say just G3 the local images, U5 or group nom the sandboxes, etc. The images uploaded to commons are a bit more of a pain in the ass for me - I don't know how to bundled nom on Commons, so when I run into these, I have to individually nominate them, which makes a mess. I'd recommend that all administrators keep an eye on the categories for hoax speedies and U5, as there may be a backlog build up in there. I would, but I essentially promised to never do speedy deletions in my RFA, so I should probably not be doing any of those deletions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Commons:Help:VisualFileChange.js is your friend: VisualFileChange (a.k.a. AjaxMassDelete), adds a “Perform batch task” link to your toolbox on wiki pages. Clicking this link will allow you to apply actions to some or all of one user's uploads, files in a category, or files displayed in a gallery. Actions include the creation of mass-deletion requests, the insertion of tags or free text, and customized text substitutions (regular expressions are supported). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

More spamming by JShark

JShark is continuing to spam talk pages related to Elon Musk. This issue has already been brought to ANI and they promised to stop. Earlier today, they posted massive identical posts on two separate talk pages (here and there). When their overly long proposal was shot down, they spammed responses. Instead of my listing the diffs, just visit Talk:Elon Musk#Inclusion of information about Musk's study published in Nature Communications. Information about Musk's donations to vaccine researchers. Musk has spent the last several weeks giving back to various charitable causes and research facilities to expedite small business survival and COVID-19 prevention. Sources. Can an admin please tell them to stop? Thanks. ~ HAL333 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: This isn't exactly the same behavior as before. I only came to ANI when JShark was asked to stop a particular behavior and didn't (spamming duplicate text across many topics). I'd say JShark replying to make a defense of their position is acceptable, but the formatting could use some work. That's why I pointed them to the talk page guidelines [11]. Creating a discussion in two different articles was a pretty mild case of WP:MULTI. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that they've been here since 2016 and have made around 1500 edits but still act like this. They post massive walls of text and respond several times when just one comment would suffice. They've had a lot of time to understand how to use a talk page. I'll admit it's not egregious, but it's annoying. This may be a case of competency is required. ~ HAL333 05:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Another example of their strange behavior can be seen here. ~ HAL333 14:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User potentially adding copyvio to various articles

TheTransportHub (talk · contribs) - has been adding paragraphs of info to various railway related articles. However, they appear to be copied from the sources they are citing. The user mainly cites magazines and websites needing registration so it is not possible to check using Earwig. SK2242 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

66.65.97.10

66.65.97.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am bringing this to the attention of administrators on the suspicion of the IP being a proxy. Shivj80 (talk · contribs) has claimed that it was them logged out when the IP made an edit to Brooklyn Nets on 16 February 2021. But the user is most likely an Indian, while the IP is based in Astoria, New York, US, which has never edited the same page as the user, no editor interaction. The IP was last blocked (for the fourth time) on 22 May 2020 for six months. I suppose it would warrant some investigation and action. Idell (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Idell, this feels like WP:OUTING Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't see anything problematic with the IP, nor their most recent edits. Not sure how it is outing when the person claimed it was them. Nothing to fix as I don't see a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, thats my bad, I didn't realize the editor had still publicly claimed it themselves. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the Requested Moves page

Hi. Looks like all the daily listings at WP:RM are missing, but they are hidden under the collapsed "Template usage examples and notes" box at the foot of the page. I've had a look, but not sure what template has been broken to cause this. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Per related changes, it was caused by this edit to Template:Hsb. I've done the appropriate protections and blocks. Graham87 16:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Graham! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)