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	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	0	36	36
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 8602 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Kamala Harris's tenure as Attorney General of California 2024-10-16 07:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Dhangar 2024-10-16 03:01 indefinite edit,move OK, meant this Daniel Case User:Magnolia677 2024-10-15 23:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent block evasion Acroterion October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel 2024-10-15 23:22 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Elli: Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I Protection Helper Bot Marhatta (region) 2024-10-15 22:57 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Religious anti-Zionism 2024-10-15 22:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq One Jerusalem 2024-10-15 22:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq October 2024 Friday Prayer in Tehran 2024-10-15 22:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq October 2024 Aitou airstrike 2024-10-15 22:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade 2024-10-15 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Amari Cooper 2024-10-15 18:30 2024-10-18 18:30 edit Edit warring over unconfirmed sports transaction. Wait until a team or the player officially confirm the transaction. As always, a report by a media member is not enough to make these types of changes. Hey man im josh Davante Adams 2024-10-15 18:15 2024-10-18 18:13 edit I meant to set it as EC, not autoconfirmed. Fixed. Hey man im josh Battle of Ayta ash Shab (2024) 2024-10-14 18:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Valerii Kondratiev 2024-10-14 13:58 2024-10-21 13:58 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Tassedethe Israeli attack on Ramyah UNIFIL post 2024-10-14 10:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Callanecc 2024 Hadera stabbing attack 2024-10-14 08:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq 2024 Hezbollah drone strike on Binyamina 2024-10-14 08:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Al-Aqsa Hospital massacre 2024-10-14 08:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon 2024-10-14 08:40 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Sheikh Hasina 2024-10-14 02:19 2026-10-14 02:19 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: See the protection log for the history of problems EdJohnston Malayalam 2024-10-13 19:21 2024-11-03 19:20 edit,move ECP needed Daniel Case Portal:Current events/2024 October 11 2024-10-13 05:36 2025-01-13 05:36 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Israeli destruction of the Gaza Strip healthcare system 2024-10-13 00:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Steven Walling October 2024 Bachoura airstrike 2024-10-12 23:53 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Steven Walling No Title as of 13 February 2024 28,340 Dead 2024-10-12 23:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Steven Walling

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)

@RandomCanadian: BillyBostickson has been indefinitely blocked by the arbitration committee, likely thanks to your complaints. Well deserved, in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice

In case anybody was following here but not on the subpage, there's a thread at AN/I; just here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 26 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)

Lugnuts, sorry, was gonna follow up on this earlier, but forgot. Anyway, essentially, your close (diff), which read in full: The result of the move request was: No consensus to move — would hardly ever count as a sufficient discussion closure, be it closed as a NAC or an admin close alike. That's because it isn't actually a closing summary, it's just an announcement of the outcome. The expectation in most RM, RFC, etc., discussions is that at least some of the salient points raised by the participants would be touched on by the closer, however briefly. Regards, El_C 15:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for taking a look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

Firefly, yeah, agreed. This seems like something that should be fairly straightforward to solve systematically, rather than whack-a-mole style. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

For the curious - seems that the reason the AntiSpoof maintainers don't want to use confusables.txt because it would cause issues with the edit filter, which also uses the "Equivset" module. Now you'd think the sensible thing to do would be to split the two systems so they can be tailored for the individual use-cases.... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:21, 22 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)

@Spcresswell: I think the links could possibly be helpful to know where this is coming from. Perhaps the sites would even be amenable to a "please don't do this on Wikipedia" line somewhere. :) You may want to consider installing your own MediaWiki software. It wouldn't be too hard to replicate what you've been working on there. Or you could look at the comparison of wiki hosting services. It seems like something that could be framed in terms of "Fandom" (but that is an ad-supported site FYI). I'm going to leave a talk page message for you with a couple talk page pointers btw. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sorry for the late reply. [History] is a common one for people sharing altered infoboxes. If you search the forum or any search engine with the word "infobox", you'll find a large number of boxes and tables. [Lion Press] is another example too. [[User:Spcresswell|Spcresswell (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 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)

I have to agree regarding playing games vs actual testing. I don't object to the additions to the {{hoax}} template, but I think just speedily-deleting any pages of users who are clearly here just to use Wikipedia as hosting for their alt-history stuff is the best plan. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search for "alternate history elections" and "imaginary elections" seems to point to this subreddit and this internet forum as being potential sources for this sort of stuff. None of this seems to be in bad faith, but I agree that it should go somewhere else per WP:NOTWEBHOST. FWIW, Miraheze might be a good bet, as it doesn't have adverts and seems to run on the latest edition of MediaWiki (meaning that templates like {{Infobox election}} can be easily ported). The editors who were creating the sandboxes seem to have got the hang of template coding, so I'd encourage anyone interested to check out places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums where you could put your skills to a better use and improve real election articles! PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• A less serious, but related trend is userspace pages for reality show placement predictions. This has been discussed at WT:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. Another Believer might know more about this problem and how the revised templates might help that project. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:49, 22 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 [6]. 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)

@HAL333: Nothing is spam. You are accusing me of things just because you do not accept that other editors contribute new information in the Elon Musk article. Another editor has also posted the same information about a scientific article and you just try to figure out how to get me blocked because you don't like my edits. Furthermore, very few editors can edit the article about Elon Musk without your consent. --JShark (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If I was a lousy editor I would never try to communicate my edits on the discussion pages and instead I would delete information without consulting anyone like you do every time you edit the article about Elon Musk. Elon Musk's article is controlled by very few editors and the rest of the editors cannot edit it without your consent. --JShark (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose that you should also start a discussion about your edits in the article about Elon Musk so that the other editors can discuss that inclusion of controversial information or discuss when you delete large chunks of an article without considering the other editors. That way all editors could edit under the same conditions and it would not seem that you have privileges that other editors who want to contribute to improve the article about Elon Musk do not have. --JShark (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your behavior in the way you edit the article about Elon Musk without first discussing your edits on the talk page is not exactly the behavior of an editor who wants to collaborate with other editors. --JShark (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Instead of trying to find an excuse to block an editor, you should try to discuss your edits on the talk page to achieve consensus among all editors. --JShark (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• @HAL333: Honestly, JShark made a reasonable point in the comment. People may sue for literally anything in the US, even when the allegations are completely unsubstantiated. The presence of a lawsuit is not an argument for inclusion. That being said... @JShark:, can you please write out your thoughts into one cohesive comment, as opposed to many individual comments? Your formatting makes following the conversation difficult. If you have additional thoughts after submitting your comment, consider editing your existing response in line with WP:TALK#REVISE (it's not preferred to writing one cohesive comment from the start... but it's fine so long as nobody has replied). You should also cut back on the use of bolding per WP:SHOUT. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Many people in the United States sue people for a huge amount of illogical things and that does not mean those accusations are real. And thanks for the advice, it is good that you assume that my intentions are in good faith and that I am not a ruthless editor who only wants to damage the articles on wikipedia. --JShark (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Presenting lawsuits and controversies together is a perfectly reasonable way to assemble and categorize a set of disputes surrounding a well-known person or entity and furthermore it is an expression with not only precedent on Wikipedia but elsewhere. It is a bit mind-boggling that displaying content backed by sources in such a way is itself under dispute: A controversy can literally be about anything as well as long as there are diametrically-minded people making their claims aloud. A celebration comes into being as long as there are people looking to celebrate something, that is literally anything. Same goes with an award, a proposition between parties, a parade, etc. QRep2020 (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User potentially adding copyvio to various articles

TheTransportHub (talk · contribs) - has been adding paragraphs of info to various UK 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) (edited SK2242 (talk) 17:13, 25 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)

Idell, mind explaining the contradiction between Indian and based in Astoria, New York? I certainly don't see it. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Contribution history and editing patterns. WP:DEADHORSE. Idell (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice way to dodge the question: why can they not be Indian yet living in New York? Most of my contributions are related to Pakistan, for example, yet good luck figuring out where I live based on my edit history alone. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Idell: I'm with M Imtiaz here. Why the fuck are you claiming an editor cannot be simultaneously be Indian or otherwise interested in India-related topics and currently residing in New York? Please explain or withdraw that offensive comment. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd further note that despite their offensive suggestion that Shivj80 cannot possibly someone interested in India related topics while residing in New York, they failed to notify Shivj80, only notifying the IP which we have no idea if it'll ever be used by Shivj80 again. (From the history, it looks like it could easily be a library or some other public access IP.) So I notified Shivj80 of this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As a probably final comment, I'd note that back in 2019 Shivj80 said "coming here" in relation to coming to the US [7]. Since Shivj80's edit history is so small, using the preview function I looked at basically every contribution of theirs, and I see nothing that conflicts with someone residing in the US. Precisely what this edit history is that makes it unlikely Shivj80 is residing in the US, I have no idea. P.S. For the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify I use the term "currently residing in" because that's all that's relevant here. Shivj80 could be someone born in the US who has never stepped foot outside New York. They could have been born in India and have emigrated permanently to the US. They could be a student from India currently studying in the US. They could be something else completely. It's none of our concern and I see no reason to doubt or question any of these myriad possibilities. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Meg. Innne

Meg. Innne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has changed the wording in David Bonnar from "bishop" to "prelate", despite being repeatedly warned[8][9][10] that this goes against the Manual of Style wording established by consensus (e.g. for disambiguation per WP:BISHOP). They have also breached the three-revert rule[11][12][13][14] though they only got warned about this after doing so[15]. I started with a level 2 warning because this user may be linked to the IP that carried out identical reversions[16][17] shortly before this single-purpose account was created (with the IP being warned by Elizium23). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: This is an "incident"—next time please post at WP:ANI. I semi-protected David Bonnar for three days which will hold things for a short period. I would encourage more communication about the actual issue—templated warnings aren't very useful for conveying information (e.g. if MOS says no "prelate", quote a little bit of the text perhaps with a brief explanation of why "bishop" is preferred at Wikipedia). That might be put on article talk ("prelate" is currently not there) and the editor given a link to the section. Unfortunately, it might be impossible to communicate with the user since I think "mobile edit" means they are in a WMF-induced bubble. Ping me from the talk page if the problem continues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq since they're using the mobile web browser and have an account they should have a notification of new messages of sorts at least last I checked. It's mobile web edits from IPs and app edits that are the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Create page

I tried to create the page (Draft:Tim Leissner) but it said I couldn't due to some blacklist. Could one of you make it for me? Thx. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This regular expression seems to be over broad. MER-C 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@MER-C: Agreed. It's the .*im.*eiss.* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinanike101 regex on the local Titleblacklist. Could you delete or change? Deltagammaz (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Deltagammaz: - You could work up the article in your sandbox first. An admin can move it to its correct title when it is in a fit condition to be released in to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked WHEELER

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

I was in two minds about posting this - if I'd seen this behaviour, and this userpage, from a new account I'd have blocked and moved on without looking back. However, given that this is an account that's 18 years old, with thousands of edits, I thought I should pay the community the courtesy of letting them know that I have indefinitely blocked WHEELER for not being here to build an encyclopaedia. I made this decision based on their most recent edits, the content of their userpage, and a skim through their last three years of editing, which were almost exclusively to that userpage, which fell foul of several of our most basic policies.

I'm not asking for a review of this block - I am entirely confident that this was in the interests of the project, and Muboshgu, who also noticed their latest editing, came to the same conclusion. This is a courtesy notification to anyone with a longer institutional memory than I have, who may have known WHEELER in the past. The recent concerning edit has been revdelled by Muboshgu, and I have deleted the userpage. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 22:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, bringing it up here was a good idea. I also was much more cautious in how I handled this account based solely on the account's age and opted to ask a question with the idea of giving the person the rope to hang himself with, so to speak. WHEELER, based on their deleted user page and the revdel'd edit, is an avowed racist. Wikipedia is not tolerant of intolerance. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Long "institutional memory" representative here. While he has done some good work I completely understand the reason for this. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/List_of_Republics#WHEELER_banned for some of the history. After reading the revdelled comment, I approve of the block. Wikipedia isn't the right place for that POV. Antandrus (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've declined their unblock request and deleted a bunch of National Socialist and Goebbels-adjacent userspace webhost material. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A review of the articles they've created is illuminating [18]. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Holy Hegel and Mother Marx this user has some FRINGE and repugnant views. WP:ZT EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. Thanks for doing this. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Good block. I read most of that deleted user page, so many levels of bizarre fringe. One of the weirdest hecking things I've read in my whole life. That recent revdelled edit is also very messed up. Hog Farm _Talk 06:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Great block, of course, per all above. Just a tiny nitpick though: the account is seventeen years old, not eighteen, because the time of the earliest edit in its contributions is wrong due to a clock reset; its diff should probably look something like this. I'm not happy though that one of the edits in my listing of these anomalies was made by a certified extreme racist. Also see a recent archived ANI thread also involving weird times in page histories. Graham87 08:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Graham87, that's very strange - does that erroneous timestamp also influence the creation date in the User log? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes, it does, because account creation times weren't oficially recorded in the database until September 2005. Graham87 09:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. That's what I call serious institutional memory! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I confess I wandered over to WHEELER's user page every now and again just to see if he'd quit/been blocked. That rev'd comment is far, far worse than anything I can remember seeing from him in the "old days". Good block; sorry it came to this. Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.

Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.

In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:

1. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
2. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
3. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
4. The final clause of the February 2019 Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to the Interactions at GGTF case) is rescinded.

The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Hello to the managers,User:Jns4eva in the article, Ali Athab has committed three violations, although the article is well-known, but it does not pay attention at all.Please handle immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! The issue we are having is that User:2A01:5EC0:9815:799C:DC7E:EEBD:A703:750F is reverting speedy deletion tags on Draft:Ali Athab instead of contesting them. While I didn't place the original speedy deletion tag, I did restore it and warn them three times to stop reverting and instead contest the tag. Also, I have only reverted 3 times, despite the issue not falling under WP:3RR technically. I apologize for inconvenience, but it simply appears the user doesn't understand the issue at hand. Jns4eva (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4evaIf you are familiar with the violation of the three reversals, you will not say this. Then I translated the article. The person is famous enough because he is a famous YouTuber. You should also read the violation of the three reversals first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4eva If you do not know this person has 5 million followers on YouTube, 763 million views and two of them have received from YouTube, so she has the reputation of YouTube.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am very familiar with 3RR and I hope you understand you've well exceeded that yourself. Again, the issue isn't their notoriety. This is entirely about you removing speedy deletion tags and me reverting them. Please read Wikipedia:Removing speedy deletion tags. I appreciate your enthusiasm but these arguments are exactly what you should be contesting with on the speedy deletion tag instead of reverting it. Thanks. Jns4eva (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4evaI complained to you and the subject of my complaint is the violation of your three returns. If I made a mistake, file a separate complaint and do not marginalize the subject of my complaint.The subject of the complaint is the violation of your three returns and you must be held accountable— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that what I was doing does NOT count as 3 reverts nor do I think you understand that this IS the place to discuss this, as this is a discussion alerting admins of what's going on and this complaint is exactly what's going on. No need to clutter the board with additional complains. I understand you're feeling attacked because of these reversions (which isn't the case I can assure you), but trying to wikilawyer myself and other users isn't the answer. Jns4eva (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to notify the admins that user:2a01:5ec0:9815:799c:dc7e:eebd:a703:750f is throwing around WP:3RR complains but is well over 6 reversions at this point. 06:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jns4evaYou can open a new complaint. Do not ignore the discussion of my complaint.‍‍‍--MNL (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oof. Swarm, did they both need to be blocked for edit warring? They were finally discussing things after all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the reported user was blocked by mistake. I meant to block OP for 3rr and deleting CSD templates, but I accidentially blocked the wrong person. Pure error on my part. OP is now blocked and Jns was immediately unblocked as a mistake. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I tried mediating on my talk page but they brought it to AN before I could respond. I tried again on their talk page but I feel like they were too upset at me to understand what exactly I was saying (as you said MJR, I could have used a softer touch for sure, I apologize for that). But I appreciate you mediating. And thanks Swarm for taking action (and especially explaining the block, I was kind of confused). Jns4eva (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for mistakenly blocking you! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

ANI closer needed

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XIIIfromTokyo

I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look at this ANI section. It's been dragging on for a while, with lots of words and accusations. I just blocked the one editor for personal attacks, but this needs more eyes. It's a bit of a read, but something has to be done here. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a difficult case, but in my opinion something needs to be done, even if it is just s stern warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey look it's another backlog!

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention could use some admins clearing it out. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

MJL: the non-actionable bot-reported names can be removed by anyone (e.g.). Consider taking a run at it and let me know if you have any questions about individual cases. –xeno^talk 14:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno: I've removed quite a few and commented on others by now,^{[19][20][21][22][23]} but there are a decent amount of pretty blatant username violations still in the bot-que. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The bot-flagging at UAA has gotten out of control. Like I can allot a solid hour to eliminating some massive bot-reported backlog, and when I log in the next morning the backlog is immediately back to an unmanageable level, largely made up of accounts that will never edit more than once or twice. It's become an unreasonable demand on an admin's noticeboard. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Swarm: It's possible for admins to adjust the blacklist. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As a non-admin, the problem is users like Sydneywhitey (talk · contribs) - not a case where a username block is really in order based on the name alone, but also based on their only edit being vandalism not a user that I want to ignore. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much this^. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User who has not communicated

Spookyh17 (talk · contribs) - They’ve upload some unlicensed images and made unsourced edits. This is not a major problem, but they have not addressed this at all. Or addressed anything in fact. None of their 173 edits have an edit summary, and they have not made a single edit to any talk page or noticeboard. Is there any way to get them to communicate? SK2242 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@SK2242: I fear they may be using the iOS Wikipedia app, which doesn't show notifications even for logged-in editors. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably the case. Is there a tag for app edits like there is for mobile web edits? SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe so, but I can test if necessary. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Wilkja19

I don't believe this is an app issue as the above user is an iOS app user and it's clearly documented in the edit logs. Slywriter (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh - I learned something new today (that iOS app edits are tagged). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Unban request: topic ban issued, without warning, based on WP:BLUDGEON

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

---

• Bavio the Benighted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Topic ban from Comfort women by FPAS at 08:54 on 24 Feb.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
• DS alert by Acroterion at 00:09 on 24 Feb.
• Talk:Comfort women where it is said that the bludgeoning occurred

I was issued a topic ban, without prior warning, for six months on the basis that I was 'bludgeoning the process' on a talk page. This seemed excessive and inappropriate for several reasons, which I listed on the relevant section of my talk page, so I would like to ask other administrators to review the ban and, if deemed unnecessary, to reverse it.

I was directed to this page by these instructions. If I should place my request elsewhere or if the decision should be appealed via some other route, please let me know. Thank you. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: TBANNING admin. I would also note that the editor in question has been blocked twice (edit warring). Fut Perf, was there an indication that the editor was likely to take the bludgeoning elsewhere if pagebanned rather than TBANNED? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've added some links to the head of this report to assist the reviewers. Bavio was notified of DS at 00:09 on 24 Feb, but there are a series of comments by Bavio at Talk:Comfort women between then and 08:54 when FuturePerfect issued the topic ban. Reviewing admins can look at Bavio's five comments and judge whether bludgeoning is an appropriate summary. (Their five comments are all in the long thread at Talk:Comfort women#Misrepresentation of C. Sarah Soh). More rationale by FP is at User talk:Bavio the Benighted#Bludgeoning discussions and there are some responses by Bavio. The background to this sanction is a pair of conventional blocks by User:Acroterion and User:Jpgordon. The two past block notices, and their declined unblock requests, are still visible on Bavio's talk page. These appear to be conventional edit warring blocks. On 31 January, Baio did make five reverts at Comfort women, marked as 'Undo' in the edit history which is a plain 3RR violation. It's hard to talk your way out of something like that. FPAS's comments about Bavio's 'sheer volume' in the Comfort women discussion are clearly justified. Good faith opposition to the tone of an existing article does tend to verge into WP:ADVOCACY after a while, especially when the user is full of charges of bad behavior by the other side. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• I placed a normal block for straight-up edit-warring in January, and I placed the DS notice out of concern that the discussion was being bludgeoned by Bavio over the past couple of weeks. Given the level of attention the Comfort women article has received from nationalists, extra eyes are warranted on edits and discussion in that area. Acroterion (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to elaborate a bit more regarding the reasons I feel the topic ban is premature:

1. The ban was issued in relation to the alert you posted on my talk page. However, said alert explicitly encouraged discussing edits with other users---i.e. I was banned for following the instructions you gave me, Acroterion. I have stopped editing the main article after my second block, because I learned that it's unproductive, so my older blocks do not seem relevant in the context of the topic ban.

2. The ban was issued without prior warning. All sanctions should at least involve one formal warning with clear instructions on how to avoid said sanction.

3. The ban was issued even though I did not violate any official policy.

4. The reason for the topic ban was that my edits were too long and too frequent, so a more rational course of action would be to impose a reasonable daily character limit to my edits regarding the topic.

5. A 6 month ban seems more like an attempt to censor one side of the debate, something I recently suspected another administrator of. The content of the article currently reflects a one-sided view of the subject, and ignores much of the more recent literature contesting an older consensus (see e.g. the diff linked above, and the relevant section on the talk page). Yet many editors who frequent the topic are quick to dismiss all challenges to the old content, no matter how well-sourced or well-argumented. As such, it seems exceedingly likely that any outright bans on those users who express contrarian views will have a negative effect on the quality of article in question, in terms of WP:NPOV and historical accuracy.

6. The topic ban was only issued to me, one-sidedly, despite other editors arguably exhibiting noticeably more disruptive behavior. For instance, an attempt to stifle on-going discussion by the removal of a template from a strongly disputed lede, and the marking of this change as "minor", has remained unpenalized. As has the removal of sourced content citing a recent peer-reviewed article, despite said article being one of the most reliable among the sources we have on the topic (as I detailed here in a post that no one has yet challenged). I am not suggesting that these other users be sanctioned, but I am suggesting that my topic ban should logically only come after theirs, given that some of their actions seem to have been intentionally disruptive. Preferential banning of editors expressing contrarian views, regardless of the actual disruptiveness of their behavior, is not the way to go when building an encyclopedia. And this is especially true if said editors have consistently cited more reliable sources than other editors to corroborate their claims, and if said arguments have never been countered on the talk page.

7. The main reason some of my posts have been long and repetitive is because I wrote them in reaction to repetitive points that I had already countered by other editors. Whenever other editors blatantly "forget" or misconstrue any of my previous arguments, I tend to try rephrasing them instead of linking to diffs, since I believe this way I have a higher chance of getting the other editor to understand my point of view.

8. As I mentioned above, my posts tend to be long for a reason: they have more and longer citations, I tend to make a conscious effort to phrase my arguments as precisely and accurately as possible, and I try to argue my points as thoroughly as I can from different angles. All of these factors make my edits longer than those of others. I think these are examples of exemplary behavior, if anything, and certainly not a reason to ban someone from partaking in a discussion.

As such, if my previous edits are indeed considered disruptive, I would like to suggest that a daily or weekly character limit is imposed to my edits to said topic. Or, alternatively, that the editors on the talk page in question be polled regarding whether or not they unanimously consider my participation in the discussion as disruptive. Based on the reasons listed above, an outright ban seems unjustified in this situation. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting this topic ban. The editor has been tendentious and disruptive in advocating for the fringe theory that the vast majority of the prostitutes who were exploited by the Japanese Imperial Army in military brothels during World War II volunteered for their exploitation. The editor sometimes uses the figure of 99.9%. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have never "advocated" the notion that the majority had been voluntary prostitutes, a point I've repeated ad nauseam. I have said that many of them were "hired" (regardless of whether they were given a choice or not) and that they worked under "contracts" (again, not necessarily willingly). Both of these claims are supported by a recent peer-reviewed article by Ramseyer. I have clarified my stance countless of times on the talk page---this type of misconstruing of my points by certain editors is exactly the reason my posts tend to be long and repetitive; if I fail to keep clarifying them ad nauseam, I have learned that some editors will keep "forgetting" or misconstruing them ad infinitum.

I did make one provocative hyperbole (mentioned on my talk page) where I assert that "more than 99% likely worked voluntarily", and, in doing so, challenged another editor to find hard proof that more than 1% of the comfort women had been coerced (which, as I'm sure we can both agree, should be an easy task if it is indeed only a "fringe theory" that a significant fraction had worked voluntarily) but they were unable to do so, arguably proving my point. And no, I still do not consider it likely that the majority had worked in the brothels voluntarily; this notion is just as unsubstantiable as the current definition.

And though I do not seem to have ever typed the number "99.9%", I assume you are referring to this quote: As of now, the Wikipedia article uncritically parrots the claims of a vocal minority amounting to 0.01% - 1% of all comfort women. But as you can see, here, I am referring to the number of testimonies, which, based on the data we have, have only been given by 0.01% - 1% of all comfort women. This number in itself is completely uncontroversial; I doubt you could find anyone who disagrees with that on the talk page.

I recently made a long post that addresses all of this, but I suppose you did not have time to read it, which is understandable, given the length of the talk page. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the ban per Cullen328; every single one of their edits since September 8, 2020 are related to this topic, and they seem to be a clear net negative in the area. They should find some other topics to edit for awhile, and if they're not interested in doing so, then they're an unwanted SPA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban. Established editors need assistance dealing with topics like this and volunteers should not need to drink from a firehose. Bavio started editing in March 2016 but since September 2020 appears to have done nothing but focus on comfort women (72% of their total 161 edits concern that topic). Unless they can gain experience working collaboratively in other areas their future editing is in doubt. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree my edits (and the edits of those editors who I've debated the topic with) have rendered the talk page overly long for volunteers to parse. This is why I would certainly contend with a character limit imposed on my future edits. I feel an outright ban would backfire, though, in that it would stifle discussion and create a warped view of the consensus. And, if the ban is lifted, I can attempt to remedy the situation by rewriting some of my older posts to make them more concise, since I do agree some of them are needlessly verbose, which might reduce their visibility (and explain why so many editors keep ignoring and misconstruing my points). Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bavio, I hope you take this in the constructive spirit in which it is offered--I take no position on the merits here; I have not looked in to them. I will say, to a casual onlooker, it looks like you are perilously close to "bludgeoning" the discussion of your bludgeoning ban. Just a word to the wise. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, and yes, I'm trying to take it constructively. This thread made me realize that my arguments on the talk page, which were aimed at getting three specific editors to see my point, were too long and too roundabout, and not very outsider-friendly. I now know I should've prioritized brevity much more than I did, and that I should've been explicit about my stance instead of trying to use a hyperbole as proof, since this lead to the misunderstanding now perpetuated by Cullen. And I apologize for the long posts, but I do feel I should defend myself against false claims / ad hominems, especially if used as a basis for supporting the ban. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen and Johnuniq. — Ched (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the behaviour in this thread. As Dumuzid has suggested, this user is close to bludgeoning this discussion, and in their reply to Cullen above they have used this appeal as an opportunity to continue arguing their case about the content. Please accept the TBan and move onto a subject you feel less strongly about. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion. I have made no attempts to defend my case about the content here. If I had, I would have linked to recent diffs of my best proofs with ample citations, which I clearly did not do here, as anyone who is updated on the state of the relevant talk page can attest. What I did do was correct two obvious errors in Cullen's edit that amounted to slander.

And if defending myself against slander is considered "bludgeoning" then surely I am obligated to do so in a thread discussing the legitimacy of a ban imposed on me. Cullen's post made it very clear that he or she only read a handful of posts on the talk page. Yet they expressed agreement with the ban based on a false assumption regarding my stance---despite it being absolutely obvious to anyone who reads >10% of my posts on the talk page that my stance has always been "the evidence does not support claim X", and that all edits I've made have been me proving this point from different angles. Certainly I should correct Cullen's glaring error, as otherwise I would be letting them poison the well.

The only motive I've ever had for editing Wikipedia has been to fix glaring errors. You can see this in literally all my edits, including the ones in this thread. If you type something that is demonstrably false then you should expect me to call you out, like I did here. I've been like this since I was 6; it's an ingrained part of my personality and there's nothing I can do about it. And if you ignore or misinterpret my argument then you can expect me to double down and disprove your point from another angle. Cue bludgeoning.

And I don't have any strong feelings regarding the subject itself, since history has never interested me. The only reason I became fixated on it is because this was the first topic I encountered where an editor reverted my changes without a valid rationale. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Bavio the Benighted has accused me of the crime of slander, which appears to me to be a clear legal threat, especially since I disclose my real world identity. This seems to me an attempt (unsuccessful) to intimidate me from discussing this editor's misbehavior. If I was uninvolved, I would issue an indefinite block until the editor unambiguously withdrew the legal threat, or a court issued a final judgment. I request that an uninvolved administrator take a look and determine whether No legal threats applies here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've lblocked Bavio the Benighted per Cullen's ANI request. El_C 06:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

... and I have unblocked, after a discussion on their talk page, setting out some conditions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose I think the need is pretty plain. Please see user's WP:NLT unblock request. TBH, I feel this user is just going to dig themselves in deeper as they do not seem to understand what they are doing wrong. And they even said, in their response to Girth Summit and others, I've been like this since I was 6; it's an ingrained part of my personality and there's nothing I can do about it. And if you ignore or misinterpret my argument then you can expect me to double down and disprove your point from another angle. (Sheesh) And then there's the slander thing. User needs to grow and learn to interact better, without "doubling down". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per pretty much everyone else. This editor needs to find another topic area to edit in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Talk:Comfort women is filled with enormous posts from this editor. Nor do they seem to be the constructive/useful kind, on the contrary they're defending a fringe theory, nitpicking ('I would never use the phrase "South Korean propaganda", and I did not do so here, either... I stated that the article as it is represents the narrative of "a South Korean propaganda machine") and arguing the article should be filled with original research. I don't see any good reason why the other editors on that article should be forced to put up with this, and our duty here is to them. Hut 8.5 12:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Closure pending: Per a discussion elsewhere, User:Bavio the Benighted has agreed (mostly) not to post any more in this ban appeal. We appear to have received enough responses. Unless there is objection I'll close this ban appeal in another few hours. Though we are holding this at AN, this request counts as an AE appeal since the ban made use of discretionary sanctions. For the appeal to be granted it needs the 'Clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors at AN'. Since nobody favors granting the appeal as yet it seems likely that the appeal will be declined. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing/socking/suspicious behaviour at Martha Stewart

Multiple similar edits by multiple new accounts/IPs in the last 24 hours. Needs protection and probably some investigation... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The disruption and edit warring has been intense. I've semi-protected Martha Stewart for a month. This seems to be an off-Wikipedia racial justice campaign related to the recent release of Bobby Shmurda from prison. The reasoning is that if Shmurda's article labels him as a felon, then so too should Stewart's. At present, neither article uses the felon label prominently but both articles mention their criminal convictions in the second paragraphs of their respective leads. That seems fair. Nobody is discussing the matter at Talk: Martha Stewart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It appears you undid the protection straight away by accident?. Agent00x (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How so? Seems fine to me. El_C 11:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Agent00x: I think the logs are confusing you. Cullen328 changed protection from indefinite PC1 i.e. anyone can edit but edits by non auto-confirmed editors (editors not using accounts or very new accounts) need to be approved by a PC reviewer before they show up in the revision normally visible; into 1 month semi-protection so non auto-confirmed editors cannot edit point blank. See WP:Protection policy and the linked pages for further info on how the various levels of protection work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it registers on the pending changes log rather than the protection log, but adding/resetting pc does show in the revision history. El_C 11:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you replying to someone else? I didn't say anything about any specific logs. The logs I imagine most editors look at are the revision history [24] and the general page logs [25] as these tend to be the easiest to navigate to. Both of these are potentially confusing to people who don't understand how protection works. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm someone else! Anyway, could be just that there was no pp tag due to MusikBot II not liking pc resets that are followed by protections, something I've already alerted MusikAnimal to a little while ago. El_C 12:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I was getting confused by the bot removing the icon and not replacing it with anything. Thanks. Agent00x (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You were supposed to say: He's right! El_C 12:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Bradv, CaptainEek, Maxim, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Now having "DYK that the DYKUpdateBot's account was compromised?" would make a great front-page DYK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

enwiki Board consultation?

Attending the office hours last weekend thanks to Nosebagbear's notification, the the WMF emphasized that they are willing to hold guided/moderated discussions about this topic with particular groups/communities. Is this something other editors of English Wikipedia would be interested in having? If so I think we can let the WMF know so a date/time could be found to do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: This is about the proposed changes to the WMF board? I don't think a lot of people here know about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes MJL. Thank you for providing that link. I had originally posted this on WP:VPWMF where it has been discussed a fair amount (and is indeed present in a couple topics now) and didn't adequately adjust for this audience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to review the close

This is a request to review the close at Talk:List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone#Merger proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Talk:KOI-4878.01#Proposed merger. The first debate has been closed despite no consensus has been reached about merging it. The debate is taking place in two separate talkpages, and an editor has closed the debate in one of them perhaps without realizing that no overall consensus has been reached in both talkpages.

The debate is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal

@Trurle @Figuerai @Astronomyeditionwiki @Kepler-1229b and me (5 editors) are in favor of keeping it as it is now, and SevenSpheresCelestia, Lithopsian, Ardenau4, Headbomb, and Davidbuddy9 (5 editors) are in favor of merging it.

Consensus has been reached to merge KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01, but not KOI-4878.01.

After several months of debate, I would appreciate if an administrator properly closes the debate as consensus reached to merge all the pages except KOI-4878.01, and removes the 'merge' notice from the page.

Thank you, cheers. ExoEditor 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move Template:Editnotices/Page/List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1970s–2000s to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1960s–2000s. Reason for request: article title was changed to List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1960s–2000s, because section was added for 1960s. Thanks in advance, I don't have required permissions. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-requested block and the flag removal

I recently was indefinitely topic-banned from "any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed" [26]. I looked at my contribution [27] and I think I can't find any areas outside of the topic ban where I can participate productively and with interest. Therefore, there is no prospect that the topic ban will ever be lifted. I think that in order to avoid stealing the account, it is better to block it. At the very least, I think you should remove my pending changes reviewer flag.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Permission error

I got a permission, when I wanted to create a local description for File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpg. Could someone create the page with {{Featured picture|Falcon 9 Full Thrust}}? Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. FYI it matched the first entry of "generic image file names" at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 26 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

There has been a new proposal since this was first announced which would also omit workshops from some cases: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Timetable and case structure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:AE understaffed by admins

I have a distinct impression that WP:AE is currently significantly understaffed by admins and has beed so for a while. There are some threads there where only a single administrator has commented in the "Result" section for a week, while the sections with comments by others keep growing and getting more unwieldy. WP:AE cannot function effectively without sufficient admin participation and I encourage more admins to start taking part there. Currently, there is one admin, User:El_C, who actively participates in all threads. A few others participate from time to time. El_C certainly deserves significant credit for his hard work, but he can't carry the entire AE by himself. More help is definitely needed there. By the way, currently WP:AE is not listed at the top of WP:AN under open admin tasks, but perhaps it should be. Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the kind words, Nsk92. Most certainly, any additional assistance that will help lighten the load would be greatly appreciated! El_C 19:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

+1. Listing # of open AE threads in the admin backlog box might help. I also think the word limit should be more strictly enforced (not to a tyrannical extent, just more than current), to reduce the amount of reading patrolling admins have to do. ("Stay on topic" is probably more important to that than actual word count). Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that one of the main reasons that I've asked users not to post any new requests on my talk page (User_talk:El_C#Destiny) is because WP:AE is simply taking up so much of my time, even if only to merely touch on the seemingly never-ending volume of these requests. As noted elsewhere recently, I've been attending to AE requests often almost-singlehandedly, which, for example, is reflected in AE/Archive277, where 11 of 14 complaints were closed (and largely attended to) by me — not including two appeals both involving my actions (both declined). Speaking of which, I'm at, like, what, 7 appeals now during the past month or so (all declined, as well), with 2 currently ongoing. El_C 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I took a quick look at WP:AE and though "I haven't the faintest idea how to handle that lot, and taking action would be broadly equivalent to a bull in a china shop". The only Arbcom case I could realistically manage is WP:ARBINFOBOX / WP:ARBINFOBOX2, and even then I'd proceed with caution. So I'm going to have to give it a miss, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

AE seems to have relied on a few admins doing the bulk of work - before El C it was Sandstein. Not ideal as it leads to a increased risk of burnout.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could force Floquenbeam to do it at gunpoint? I mean, sillier things have been suggested around here.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The power of the Floq compels you, the power of the Floq compels you! El_C 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, just need to adopt a remedy here, 'Floq is required to clear AE, stat' all those in favor, say aye. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Floq's currently taking a break; I think he would run a mile from AE right now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's too bad. Unhappy face. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if all else fails, I may have no choice but to turn to Buck Flower, but he'd probably just engage in the usual Gooby-related spammage, as is his nature!¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 21:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that User:EdJohnston, User:Dennis Brown, and User:Black Kite used to be pretty regular at AE. I wonder if any of them would have the time or inclination? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I hate to be "that guy" but I think what would be best for the community is if new admins, who haven't ever patrolled AE, gave it a spin. There are 500 active admin and I bet less than 20 have ever commented at AE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that notion is that AE does have a somewhat steep learning curve, so expecting new admins unfamiliar to just jump straight in to the deep end before even dipping their toes, then expecting that to produce the best outcomes — that seems unrealistic, to me. Anyway, I admit that I am curious to see what would happen if I were to just leave the AE noticeboard to its own devices. So, I think I'll do that by avoiding it for the next while. I'd rather be editing articles about Israeli poets than AE-ing away, anyway, I just try to go to where the need is greatest. So, Good Night, and Good Luck. And let's hope it all works out for the best. Fingers crossed. El_C 00:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confident our crop of active admins can master the steep learning curve, as many have done before them. :-) How to convince anyone to volunteer for this, per the bear below, is another story altogether. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course they can, but, again, probably not in one-fell-swoop, as you propose. But doesn't really matter. I'm sure it'll all work out in the end. Necessity is a great motivator, after all. El_C 06:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Not one fell swoop: a comment from an admin on one case a week or a month will give us a diversity of opinions on the reports, e.g. "is this edit warring?" "is this uncivil?" "where is the ONUS?" etc., and doesn't put too much on any one admin. Thanks, C, for holding down the fort there, and also to the other admins who have commented there recently. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally. Happy to have helped. Indeed, the more, the better, so, from your mouth to God's ears, Levivich. Lord knows I could use the rest! El_C 07:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• AE struggles as an area as it is has the unholy trifecta of discouraging admins: 1) technically difficult 2) inherently hostile/dramatic 3) is a field that a significant portion of admins have major ideological disagreements/concerns with either the concept, or the execution. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I'm part of 3) now. I found that AE works well in the daily business of banning or blocking ethno-nationalist POV warriors, but it falls short when discretionary sanctions or even individual ArbCom sanctions are to be enforced against the unblockables. Even though AE sanctions are supposed to be protected against being undone by an angry mob, in practice that's what often happens because in my experience ArbCom does not back up enforcing admins in such circumstances, leaving them to be dragged from dramaboard to dramaboard. That's why I now leave ArbCom enforcement to ArbCom itself. Sandstein 10:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) is granted administrative permissions on the English Wikipedia following the securing of its passwords by the operator.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 23:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

A motion has modified the internal procedures of the Arbitration Committee. The motion was enacted after it reached majority support on the the committee's public motions page. The Arbitration Committee intend to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase. The committee also intends to make workshops optional, such as in cases where the conduct of one or two editors is being examined. The section which has been added to the procedures page reads:

Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

Mansigh

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

---

Hi there, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1008959037 did not satisfy. Where's the correct place? Here, or DR? Thanks for help!...?? Regards PS This Wiki's huge, and confusing...

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

User:Hannah02130213

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

---

• Hannah02130213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Reason: Adding Original research after warning in Chinese painting. Also, if here is not the suitable place for report this inappropriate behavior, I am sorry about that. Thank you. --SCP-2000 11:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Community ban request for JaiMahadev aka Phoenix man

JaiMahadev has already been blocked as a suspected sock of Phoenix man, and I suspect will soon be CU-confirmed. Based on this edit however, I think the community should also enact a formal ban. It won't make any practical difference, but it's the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

... Already banned per WP:3X. --Izno (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Izno, Not that I can see from the SPI tags. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Page Creation Error

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

---

Hellos, Good Evening. I’m Dablizz Praise I want to create a page about myself, but I encountered an error and I was instructed to report the issue.. Below is what I wrote about myself

Dablizz. Ibeole Praise Chinemerem known by his stage name Dablizz is a rapper and Afro-pop artist. Music Genre Rap, AfroPop, Afro Beat. He is the 4th son of Mr/Mrs Ibeole Joseph. Born on May 8 1998 Hails from Orlu Imo State, Nigeria. He released his first single titled LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dablizz1 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Social media. Wikipedia does not exist to improve your name recognition or promote your brand. Wikipedia is not for autobiographies, even if you are notable. Wikipedians will create an article should you become notable and get coverage in reliable sources. In short, you have to achieve the fame before you get the article, not create an article to get famous. Probably not the answer you want, but it's the reality Slywriter (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, Is the shouting really necessary? Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider emphasis of important words shouting but in deference to the concern, I have normal cased. Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Scope of 1-way IBAN: Query

As suggested by the admin that has been most recently offering input into my IBAN (for the IBAN itself, see my Talk page); I am asking for a view on exactly what sort of thing your IBan covers, and also in particular concerning what the scope of BANEX point 2 is supposed to be. If anyone thinks the person I am ibanned from should be notified of this discussion, please do so, but I do not believe that to be a required notification that would be allowed in the terms of the ban. I will not be making any mention of that other editor or any of that editor's edits in this discussion, but of course they will be visible in some of the diffs I present; my understanding is that that is evidently covered in Banex point 2 (though the scope of BANEX is the second part of my question).

Since the IBAN was enacted, there have been a few instances - particularly concerning Talk space rather than Article space - where the scope of the one-way IBAN has been unclear. The key phrase of WP:IBAN, as I understand it, is Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other and the key elements that are then noted are to edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions and make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. The first two of these seem fairly straightforward, but two admins that have commented on the third one have had what Girth Summit (GS) called slightly different takes.[28]

For example, El C offered an interpretation, I'm not seeing where you have been addressed or mentioned by Newimpartial. They are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits and found no problem with my !vote on an issue. [29] Months later, in response to another inquiry, GS's take was that that same Talk page edit, and others that I had made in the meantime along the same logic, were (inadvertent) infractions [30]. When I asked GS about what I thought was a very cautious contribution, about a passage I had edited in the past, [31] he expressed his view that it was an IBAN violation,[32] so I reverted.[33] However, the interpretation El C had offered, that I could participate in content disputes so long as I did not reply to the other editor, interact with them in discussion or make reference to or comment on their edits, seemed more plausible to me and more in line with the goal of building an encyclopedia. But Girth Summit usually a fairly grounded individual, so I wanted to see what the broader sense from the Admin community actually is.

The other issue that came up was specifically with reference to WP:BANEX point 2, concerning appeals. I tried twice with Girth Summit to appeal to have the 1-way IBAN converted into a 2-way ban (after El C, the original banning admin, gave his affirmative endorsement that it was appropriate to so).[34] The first time I offered a somewhat technical history of the sequence of events leading to and following the ban[35], which he had no problems with under BANEX 2 as far as I could tell, though he did object[36] to my followup comment[37] for reasons I did not understand at the time. After 10 days of additional developments I tried again, contrasting very recent developments with the ban's pre-history. [38] After some back-and-forth for clarification, GS finally got me to understand [39] that in his view, a post under BANEX point 2 can make reference to the editing of the other editor only concerning diffs that were directed at me and my editing in particular, and that patterns connecting an editor's actions directed at me and those directed elsewhere (such as other editors or BLPs) is not allowed, even as part of a clarification or appeal. Is this the general view of the Admin community? I have looked everywhere I could think of, including the archives of this noticeboard, and could not find the basis for any such restriction. BANEX exempts Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum such as appealing the ban. I don't see any documentation relating to what GS called the commonly accepted interpretation that only very restricted evidence is allowed in such appeals. Obviously GS is not going to convert the 1-way ban into a 2-way (nor am I asking for that to be done here), but I would very much like to understand what the scope of my 1-way IBAN actually is.

So my questions are:

• must I avoid entering a talk page discussion in which the editor from whom I have been IBANned has previously commented or !voted (so long as so do not interact with their comment or !vote)?
• must I avoid entering a talk page discussion about newly proposed article text, where some of that text would replace text previously edited by the person from whom I am IBANned (assuming that I do not comment on their contribution or text)?
• in any future appeal made under BANEX, am I restricted to present only diffs that are drawn from direct commentary on me or my edits by the other editor, or can other evidence also be included?

I would appreciate the views of the Admin community on these and any related matters. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll just note that my position toward one-way IBANs (editor-to-editor, as opposed to editor-to-uninvolved admin) has largely been that the other party must also adhere to the IBAN as if it were a 2-way one. They just get to not be logged at WP:AEL/WP:RESTRICT (i.e. as being at fault). As I explained to Lilipo25 on several occasions (and to others facing a similar situation, elsewhere), repeated breaches on their part to that effect, are likely to lead to the one-way IBAN being formally converted as a 2-way one (logging, etc.). So, though in a sense an informal prohibition, I still generally view it as a big no-no. Not sure to what extent this is a prevailing practice among other admins, but that's been my approach to one-way IBANs for a long while now. El_C 17:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Approximately ten minutes ago, I made a mistake and, while saving a report I was writing to this very noticeboard about Newimpartial's repeated violations of this Iban, to my sandbox, accidentally pinged Newimpartial and let them know about it before I could post it here (I did not know that pings saved to my sandbox would be sent, as I rarely use my sandbox, or I would never have put the pings meant for the final report in it. Mea culpa/). Coincidentally, Newimpartial immediately thereafter posted this report first.

Should I go ahead and post my report after this one or add it to this one? i don't know the appropriate protocol here. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, it's probably best that you attach it here as a subsection. But, please, for the love of Gooby, could both of you try to be relatively brief? (Though in the case of Newimpartial, I suppose it's a bit late for that, but for any further follow ups, certainly hoping they keep this in mind.) El_C 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, to the best of my knowledge, outside of complaints to me and other uninvolved admins, Lilipo25 did not breach the informal prohibition after it was explained to her by me as such — just so there's no confusion whether I am making the claim that she did. Possibly, it did happen, but if so, I remain ignorant of it. El_C 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, here it is (and I'm sorry, El C, but it isn't all that brief) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)

This makes baby Gooby sad. El_C 18:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Report from Lilipo25 about Newimpartial's Iban Violations

20 February 2021 at 15:12: While talking to an admin Girth Summit about the last Iban violation by Newimpartial who is currently under an Iban placed by El C and barring contact with me or discussion of me on Wikipedia, I accidentally referred to Newimpartial as "he", after previously using only a neutral "they" (bc I did not know what their gender was): [40]

20 February 2021 at 23:36: Eight hours later, Newimpartial suddenly added to their profile for the first time in their nine years on Wikipedia that they identify as nonbinary and use they/them pronouns [41]

26 February 2021: In the latest violation of their Iban, Newimpartial sent Girth Summit a second request in ten days to place an Iban on me, as well. In this request, Newimpartial told Girth Summit FOUR TIMES over two comments [42] [43] that I "misgendered" them but did not mention that they only identified themselves and their pronouns AFTER that: [she] has misgendered me ; I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered ; not only has she misgendered me.; As I said previously, I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered.

In the same comments, Newimpartial also made libelous insinuations, with no proof, that I objected to the slur TERF in a source on an article talk page last week because the author is "transmasculine" In a similar vein, she dismissed a peer-reviewed source as misogynist based on nothing besides her own POV, citing its use of a term (TERF) which she called a slur.[8] Meanwhile, according to the balance of academic and non-activist sources, the claim that "TERF" is a slur is not a neutral statement, but rather a position within a debate that is taking place inside and outside feminism, as documented here. Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess.

For the record - and since I believe Newimpartial is in the UK, I will use only UK sources -TERF has been called a "gendered slur like bitch and cunt" by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK Parliament, a "pejorative term" by the Standards Commission of Scotland, a "derogatory word primarily aimed at women" by a UK district court judge and "hate speech" by the All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Hate Crime.

Newimpartial took this even further in that comment, saying that I aim baseless accusations of misogyny directed at those she disagrees with, whether at editors or at the authors of sources or at living public figures (often, though not always, at trans or nonbinary people).

To my knowledge, Newimpartial is the only editor with whom I have a regular history of interaction who has ever identified themselves as either nonbinary or trans, and they have literally only just done that now.

In addition, Newimpartial violated the direct instructions of two admins (Girth Summit and El C) to stop speaking about me or following my edits by making complaints to Girth Summit in those two comments about interactions I have had with other editors that did not involve them and opinions I have had about sources and about articles that also did not involve them in any way.

While Girth Summit once again chose not to sanction Newimpartial for these latest breaches of the Iban, he told me that I should bring it up here if I objected. I do, as this breach not only came with slanderous statements of me that are too extreme to ignore, it is also in my opinion at least the sixth breach in the past several weeks.

Girth acknowledges this one and the three others here were all breaches [44] [45] [46] . In addition, Girth acknowledged this one as a breach but gave Newimpartial a pass by saying they might not have realized the content they were discussing was written by me (after being told not to discuss my edits): [47]. Then there was this one, that no one even acknowledged, in which Newimpartial took it upon themselves to join a dispute between myself and another editor and which was already being handled by the same two admins (Girth Summit and El C) [48]

I want to be clear that I would not normally make a further complaint after an admin has ruled, and I am not filing a grievance about Girth's response to this situation now. My complaint is solely about Newimpartial's continual breaches of the Iban and their slanderous accusations toward me in this latest one. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add here that although it is only a one-way Iban, I have made it a point not to discuss Newimpartial with anyone except the two admins involved in the Iban when breaches occur or I need to ask if something was a breach. Nor do I reply to any of Newimpartial's comments on the talk pages we both edit, nor do I change any of their edits in articles, nor do I follow their edits on other pages that I myself do not edit and keep track of their interactions with other editors or their opinions on those pages. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications re: Report from Lilipo

Per BANEX, point 2, am I allowed to make factual comments concerning this submission (which, BTW, I received no notice of until after filing my query above?). I will confine any such clarifications to this section Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But what do you mean you received no notice? And, anyway, I am the one who had informed both Lilipo25 and GS of this discussion (diff1, 2). Everybody's aware now, in any case. El_C 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I meant simply that my submission to this board[49] preceded the other user's accidental ping[50] by the better part of an hour. I did not file my query in response to anything the other user was doing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, okay. I'm still slightly confused, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. El_C 18:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. My parenthetical comment was alluding to this diff, specifying that in fact I had no idea of the content now posted as the Report from Lilipo25 section at the time I filed my query about IBAN rules. Because of my lack of access to a working time machine. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a subsection of a thread you authored, what do you mean? You feel you ought to have received a notice for that? What am I missing? El_C 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW, stop stealing my jokes! (diff) Grr. El_C 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications

• Concerning this diff, I received the other editor's ping about 45 minutes after filing my query in this forum.[51]
• Concerning In this request, Newimpartial told Girth Summit FOUR TIMES over two comments that I "misgendered" them but did not mention that they only identified themselves and their pronouns AFTER that - I never suggested or implied that the misgendering was intentional, Misgendering can be either. My point was that being discussed by third parties, being unable to make even factual comments about that and being misgendered at the same time was a situation to be avoided by a 2-way IBAN. I would also point out that, while my coming out on wiki was recent, most editors avoid misgendering each other by avoiding gendered pronouns AFAIK; until last week I don't think I had ever been misgendered on-wiki.
• Concerning since I believe Newimpartial is in the UK, I live in Canada; concerning my (quoted) prior comment that "TERF" is a slur is not a neutral statement, but rather a position within a debate that is taking place inside and outside feminism, as documented here, "here" originally linked to the discussion of that very topic at TERF#Slur debate.
• The point I was making in that long, quoted passage, in case I was unclear, was that it seems to me a BLP violation to label a living person as a misogynist because they use the term TERF, unless additional evidence or sourcing is provided. I was not invoking the terms of that debate beyond (what I thought was) that simple point. I regard the unattributed use of "TERF" and "misogynist" identically.
• Concerning In addition, Newimpartial violated the direct instructions of two admins (Girth Summit and El C) to stop speaking about me or following my edits by making complaints to Girth Summit in those two comments about interactions I have had with other editors that did not involve them and opinions I have had about sources and about articles that also did not involve them in any way (emphasis added) - there was no "following" involved in either of my appeals to Girth Summit for a 2-way IBAN [52] [53] - as far as I am aware, all of the diffs I provided are from pages I have had on my list for a long time, though for the second filing they include discussions on those pages in which I was unable to participate because of the IBAN.
• Concerning the talk page of another editor with whom El C and Girth Summit and I were engaged in discussion, I believe this is a reference to this section. I encourage admins to read the linked discussion, but as far as I am aware I observed my IBAN strictly and confined my discussion to the other editor (with whom I had previously interacted repeatedly, beginning on pages my IBAN partner does not edit) and the two admins.
• The statement I made in the previous bullet appears to be confirmed by Newimpartial took it upon themselves to join a dispute between myself and another editor and which was already being handled by the same two admins (Girth Summit and El C), where the reference provided points to the same discussion. Again, I encourage interested admin to read this discussion, which concerns a DS topic, the editor whose page it is on, and the two admin, but (at least in my own contributions) does not in any way touch on the editor from whom I am IBANned.

(Any further clarifications will be added as required). Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional clarifications

• Concerning El C's statement that Also, to clarify, to the best of my knowledge, outside of complaints to me and other uninvolved admins, Lilipo25 did not breach the informal prohibition after it was explained to her by me as such, I would expect that the following statement made by Lilipo would not be covered by BANEX 2, and certainly not without supporting diffs:
• I have no expectation for an immediate solution to what is a very contentious and complicated issue between Newimpartial and I. I have been pushed well beyond exasperated. all the way to disgusted, by over a year of continual baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying and don't feel that my staying inside the rules when they simply will not has done me any good at all thus far.[54]
• My sense therefore is that the conditions of El C's informal prohibition were not in fact maintained, and this seemed to be the view of Girth Summit as well.[55] Also the interaction analysis he offered in the same diff did not find any support for "hounding", nor has any admin ever suggested any gaslighting (or misogyny) on my part. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Concerning being told repeatedly that I promote and want the rape and murder of trans people[56] - this is not a thing that ever happened in the linked ANI discussion or anywhere else. In fact, I specified in that discussion, I have never said that you have promoted violence against trans people, and no quotations or diffs have ever offered evidence to the contrary.
• Concerning taunted with the TERF label[57] - this is not a thing that ever happened in my interactions with this editor (or anyone else). The only reference I made to TERFs in that discussion - as any admin can see by checking the link - was I categorically condemn violence against TERFs. That isn't hard for me to do in good conscience. And what is more, I have not and will not edit articles in such a way as to condone or whitewash violence against TERFs, and that was in response to a question raised by Girth Summit concerning my attitude towards violence against TERFs.
• Concerning the "she whitewashes cop murders of black trans people" accusation[58] - that is also not a thing that actually happened, as anyone can verify at the same link. I see now that my first comment on this matter could be misunderstood:

quote from the same link
Lilipo has repeatedly whitewashed articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people.

However, I later clarified that the "promoting violence" and "standing idly by" were things the "individuals and organizations" had done, not an accusation against an editor:

another self-quote from the same link

As far as violence against Trans people is concerned, the first of your two BLP subjects "has been permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation" according to Twitter spokespeople. Your second subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man. Your claim that neither of these activists has condoned or encouraged violence against trans people is, ahem, unproven, and contradicts the available sources.

So while I understand that my first comment might be confusing, I did clarify, and I certainly made no suggestion that the editor in question was "whitewashing" the incident in question; I stated that they whitewashed the BLP article of an individual who, according to reliable sources, condoned the incident.

• Concerning that ANI in general, I regard it as probably the lowest point in my participation on WP. I recognize that I let my emotions get in the way of clear thinking and writing in that discussion, and I regret the evident distress it caused to my IBAN partner and other editors. For that reason, I was accepting of the "final warning" I was given after that discussion and have not repeated any of the behaviours I showed there in any subsequent on-wiki interaction, to the best of my knowledge. (It is largely for this reason that accusations of baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying seem so profoundly inaccurate when applied to the period since July 2020, while "gaslighting" and "hounding", like "misogyny", represent things I have never done.)

Responses to Clarifications:

• Since Newimpartial did not notify me when they opened this discussion (most likely in deference to the Iban), I didn't receive notification of it until El C left a message on my Talk Page, which was after I accidentally 'pinged' El C, Girth Summit and Newimpartial from my sandbox and let them know I was writing a report. I accept Newimpartial's explanation that they in fact posted this report before being notified of mine.
• My accidental use of the pronoun "he" would not have been avoided by a Two-way Iban. I was speaking to GirthSummit, the admin currently in charge of the Iban, at the time about one of Newimpartial's Iban breaches. This would have been taking place whether or not I was under an Iban at the time or not. Furthermore, Newimpartial's very strident, repeated claim that I 'misgendered' them was at no time accompanied by any disclaimer that I could not have known their pronouns (as they did not add them to their bio until hours later). It stretches credibility to claim they were not attempting to make it seem I had done it deliberately.
• Sorry, I always thought Newimpartial was in the UK. I did not realize we were both Canucks. I could have used North American sources (and still can, if anyone's interested), but at any rate, it is considered an offensive term by both many people and many official organizations, and is not, as they claimed, believed to be neutral by "academic and non-activist sources", nor is the belief that it is offensive based on merely my POV as stated (and I don't think there are any official bodies or even academic papers, anywhere, that call the word "misogynist" a slur). None of that really matters, tbh, because my objection to that term in a talk page discussion of an article has nothing to do with Newimpartial's Iban and should never have been taken to an admin by them in a bid to get a two-way Iban placed on me.
• In at least one instance in the past week (the last diff in my comment above), Newimpartial came to a page where they had not been editing (the talk page of another editor with whom El C and Girth Summit and I were engaged in discussion), opened a new section and began offering advice to the other user on how to deal with the issue at hand, which had nothing at all to do with them. It is difficult to see how that doesn't constitute 'following', but even if they had not done that, keeping track of my edits with which they are not involved to report them to admins is, at best, seriously pushing the limits of an Iban. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The only thing I have to clarify from Newimpartial's addendums is that the conversation that they joined on the other user's page did not start there - it started on my Talk page here, between me and the other user, we then asked Girth to mediate there, and it continued there until Girth moved it to the other user's page while I was asleep later that night (as I am in a time zone some hours behind the other participants) [59].
• I keep thinking I'm done adding things (and I would really like to be) but then more is added by Newimpartial to widen the scope of this just a bit more and I feel I have to respond. I have no idea if any admin has ever used those particular words to describe them, but I will stand my description of what the last year of dealing with this user has been like for me. I am genuinely reluctant to rehash more old drama and had hoped we could just stick to the Iban and yesterday's accusations, but since they have widened the scope to include that description, I now feel that I have no choice but to point out why I have reached the point of complete exasperation with these tactics from Newimpartial, and with one violation of the Iban after another.
  • I could pull up a dozen more gifs here but suspect that would send El C and Gooby over the edge completely, so I will pick one discussion that demonstrates all of those descriptions in one microcosm: the last ANI Newimpartial and I were in together [60].
    • I'm not going to pretend I behaved perfectly there, but If being told repeatedly that I promote and want the rape and murder of trans people because I had said nothing about violence against trans people in discussions that had nothing whatsoever to do with that topic - then taunted with the TERF label to make a "declaration" disavowing the violence I had never even suggested - isn't baiting, bullying and gaslighting, I don't know what is. And that was even before the "she whitewashes cop murders of black trans people" accusation. If you can tell me that you could put up with that kind of thing over the course of a year and not be disgusted, too, you are a far better person than I. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv

I'm sorry to see this report here and have no doubt that it will not be properly dealt with because these walls of text are impenetrable to uninvolved users, despite El C's request for brevity. I think it's clear that this one-way IBAN needs to be extended to a two-way IBAN and that both participants should be given a final warning after which any sort of reference to the other participant should lead to blocks of escalating lengths. I'm not convinced that there should be any exception to this rule at all even under the premise of "clarifying the IBAN" as Lilipo25 has used this opportunity to make negative implications about a user's disclosure of gender identity and make a wrongful claim of libel which could reasonably be taken as a legal threat, while Newimpartial has made misleading descriptions of Lilipo25's actions in IBAN-related "clarifications". Possibly it could be said that they are permitted to make exactly one edit when they think there has been a breach in which they could inform an uninvolved admin with a cookie cutter wording I believe this edit [link] is a violation of an IBAN described here [link]; could you please investigate? and then not reply further or raise the issue again (including if the admin chooses not to take action). I don't know why this wasn't a two-way IBAN in the first place when it was April 2020 that Lilipo25 said of Newimpartial and another editor: [another editor and Newimpartial] don't think of women as actual people like all misogynists, [...] you've done it for the same reason all misogynists bully and degrade women: the personal sense of power it gives you [...] [Newimpartial and another editor] enjoy smacking a woman into place and telling her it's good for her [61]. This would warrant an WP:NPA 31-hour block were it recent. I should note that I've frequently disagreed with both users before, as I'm sure they would be quick to point out, so this is just a comment by someone who sees both of these usernames everywhere in his watchlist. — Bilorv (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Eep. Though my memory of July 2020 is hazy, I highly doubt I would have made it a one-way IBAN had I been made aware of that. Will convert to a 2-way IBAN with immediate effect. Off I go to amend the log. Thank you, Bilorv, for the much needed cogency. El_C 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Post Malone

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

---

What happened vandalism warned User:TheVideoGamePhenom. Revert of edit Post Malone RoseGold1250 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@RoseGold1250: Yes, the edit by TheVideoGamePhenom to the article Post Malone [62], was not an improvement, fiddling with the protection template and changing "Malone" to "Post" throughout, contrary to normal Wikipedia style, but the only step needed was to revert the edit -- which I have now done. It's hardly an issue to bring to the noticeboards, which are meant for serious, ongoing or intractable problems. I will be removing the notice you placed on TheVideoGamePhenom's talk page and will replace it with a simple editing notice. I'm also going to close this discussion, although anyone can re-open it who thinks the close is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User: Foodprofessor

User is suspected to arm only one person's reputation, Sylvain Charlebois by changing endings. The page fully explains circumstances of an investigation 3 years ago. Foodprofessor's changes are not reasonable, wishes title to imply guilt, but charges were drop three years ago. Name of user also suspicious as Sylvain Charlebois is known as the food professor as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvez (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)