Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	25	28
TfD	0	0	4	0	4
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	75	17	92
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• -1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 176 sockpuppet investigations
• 28 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 8 requests for RD1 redaction
• 38 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 118 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 25 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (35 out of 8222 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:Yamla/talk/talk 2024-08-11 01:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem User talk:RickinBaltimore 2024-08-11 00:17 indefinite move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft talk:Farlight 84 2024-08-10 21:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Al-Tabin school attack 2024-08-10 13:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Wikipedia talk:…/talk 2024-08-09 23:34 indefinite create LTA target Ad Orientem Wikipedia talk:… 2024-08-09 23:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: LTA Ad Orientem 1999 East Timorese crisis 2024-08-09 23:18 2025-05-14 00:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Category link if exists 2024-08-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3481 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Taxila Business School 2024-08-09 17:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Draft:Sabit Yeasin 2024-08-09 16:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Hahaha 2024-08-09 16:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Israel Olympic football team 2024-08-09 15:16 2024-11-09 15:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli incursions in Tulkarm 2024-08-09 14:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato MrBeast 2024-08-09 14:01 2024-11-09 14:01 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:Battle of Height 383 2024-08-09 04:51 indefinite edit,move persistent readdition of page to categories no matter how many times it's removed on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds, by an editor who's already been told to stop it Bearcat Lipetsk air base 2024-08-09 04:35 2024-09-09 04:34 edit move protection was not needed here Red-tailed hawk Hawkesbury, Ontario 2024-08-09 00:37 2024-08-16 00:37 edit,move Persistent vandalism Anachronist Baalveer 2024-08-09 00:14 2024-11-09 00:14 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruption resumed as soon as the prior protection lifted. Anachronist Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark 2024-08-08 20:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Special military operation 2024-08-08 18:19 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Muboshgu Template:Election box gain with party link no swing 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Proper name 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Disestablishment category in country by decade/core 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2586 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics 2024-08-08 12:46 2024-09-08 12:46 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Kursk 2024-08-08 12:39 2025-02-08 12:39 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:194.28.84.109 2024-08-08 08:08 2024-11-08 08:08 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot PhonePe 2024-08-07 22:02 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry, block evasion and WP:UPE The Wordsmith Steve Shapiro 2024-08-07 21:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Sudzha 2024-08-07 18:17 2024-08-14 18:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless Hollywood Creative Alliance 2024-08-07 17:33 2024-08-21 17:33 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Discussed at WP:ANI Cullen328 Misandry 2024-08-07 17:28 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/GG -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Buuhoodle 2024-08-07 14:51 2026-08-07 14:51 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Case Oh 2024-08-07 12:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Muhammad Hassaan 2024-08-07 11:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Titan Cameraman 2024-08-07 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD

User:Storm598

Storm598 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has been here for three months, and in that short time has made 815 edits and accumulated a talk page full of warnings and disputes. They have been blocked once. Looking down their contributions page, a large percentage of their edits have been reverted, and I have found more which were in need of reverting, which I have done. There remain others in topic areas I'm not familiar with, so I'd like to suggest that other editors take a look at their contributions and make whatever corrections or reversions are appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is unfair. It is a completely different matter that there have been frequent disputes and that editing is wrong. If you edit the original controversial subject mainly, editorial disputes will naturally arise. However, in the future, unless I bring the source first, I will do as little dispute editing as possible.--Storm598 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Storm598 has now posted on their user page: "I have a lot of headaches, so I won't edit the English Wikipedia for a while. (at least one month)" I still believe that an informal investigation of their editing would be worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Headaches are a common recurring symptom of ANI flu.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Now they've posted "retired", that the account is "deprecated" and "I don't want to open a new account for a while." If they have an account in (at this moment) good standing, under what policy would they be allowed to make a new account? Something seems fishy here -- the moment some attention is given to a 3 month old account, it gives up the ghost. What are they concerned about being found out about the account? Is a checkuser needed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They aren't under any sanction, but they are under discussion at a admin noticeboard so retiring this account and starting a new one would not be permitted under WP:CLEANSTART. P-K3 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Considering this discussion on Talk:California Democratic Party and some other edits that they've made today, I'm very close to asking for an AP2 TB for Storm598. Their edits are badly informed, and most of them have been reverted by miself and others. I'll wait to see if they take my suggestion to avoid that topic area or not, and will return with additional evidence if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is very unfair. I participated in Talk and didn't insist on editing until the end.--Storm598 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Participating in the discussion is not the issue here, it's the fact that in your participation, you made it quote clear that your understanding of American politics is very poor, and that your sources of information are not appropriate or reliable. For instance, on Blue Dog Democrat, you insisted on a citation for adding "Social conservatism" to their ideology in the infobox, when anyone who knows anything about American politics knows that this is the case. You really don;t have a clue about the subject, and yet you feel free to edit substantially in the area, even though many of your edits have been reverted. In my judgment, you simply do not have the competence needed to edit in the AP2 subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Check out the history of the Blue Dog Coalition document. (r1004387792 → r1004930554) Rather, I have clearly improved what had been misrepresented as "Fiscal responsibility" for more than a few years as "Fiscal conservatism". If I hadn't improved this, would you have been able to add a "Social conservatism"? I just think that Blue Dogs are financial conservatism, not social conservatism. I know enough about American politics.--Storm598 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you think that is a very good indication that you do not know enough about American politics to be editing in that topic area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's also of concern to me that Storm598, even as an editor of only 3 days tenure, was creating brand new categories without discussion and then populating them, somethionig that they continue to do. [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken insulted me with false information in the Law and Justice article Talk. # I think this discussion is also cherry picking for Beyond My Ken to penalize me for editing Wikipedia.--Storm598 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote was "The consensus in the discussion above is crystal clear, "far-right" is well-supported, and there are no grounds for re-opening the discussion. It appears to me that Storm598 is being disruptive as the result of a personal POV." This was after you attempted to open a new thread about whether the Law and Justice party of Poland was "right-wing" or not, when you had just opened a previous discussion days earlier and comments were running against you in it. That was unnecessary and disruptive, and your persistence seemed to me to be an indication that you have a personal ideological stake in the "correct" decision being made -- otherwise why not simply let the discussion play out and see what happened? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As for "cherry picking", I have invited other editors to look at the totality of your editing for themselves. When a significant portion of an editor's contributions have been reverted by other editors, that's a pretty good indication that their editing is not up to snuff, which I would like other editors to investigate for themselves. The examples I have posted here are simply examples of some of the worst of your problematic editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My editing was controversial, but I never took the POV's view at all. Rather, if you carefully look at the history of all the documents I edited, it is clear that you did "cherry picking." #, # → #, # → # think what Beyond My Ken is doing to me is undermining me. According to Beyond My Ken, it is no different from saying that many Wikipedia users have a POV perspective. I am entitled to edit American political articles.--Storm598 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not if your ignorance causes your editing to be disruptive. An editor such as myself shouldn't have to check over every article you added to the category you created Category:Proto-feminists to see if the article should properly be in that category, and find that the vast majority of them -- added by you -- shouldn't have been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The timing of Proto-feminism is also understood to be controversial in academia. I believe that female activists of the era before the term feminism was born should also be considered Proto-feminists. Because during the French Revolution, the term "feminism" did not exist. But since I'm not as stubborn as you think I am, I'm not going to undo the articles that removed Category:Proto-feminists.--Storm598 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You know the complete opposite. Check the history of the document. PiS had been written "Right-wing" for quite a long time, and I tried to change it to "Far-right".--Storm598 (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake, I typed the wrong thing. Sue me. But you were told that "right-wing" is well-supported. Where, exactly, did I say that your personal PoV was rightist? Editing from a personal PoV is bad no matter what that PoV is, because it has a tendency to skew the neutrality of your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the PiS document was agreed "Right-wing" by public opinion before I created this account. # That's why I held a second debate.--Storm598 (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying "document". Wikipedia has "articles", not "documents". And "right-wing" wasn't determined by "public opinion", it was determined by WP:CONSENSUS, which is central to Wikipedia's editing process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

AP2 topic ban

• I think it'd be better to do it like this. From now on, I will not edit articles related to American politics for a month. And after that, I will be careful not to collide and edit it more flexibly. Why don't you decide after that?

Of course, I don't think I'm ignorant of American politics, and I think Beyond My Ken is undermining me, but I think my editing has been a little aggressive lately.--Storm598 (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you agree that a topic ban from AP2 is appropriate, to the extent that you're voluntarily going to adhere to one for a month, then I think there's a prima facie case for a non-voluntary AP2 TBan to be imposed by an admin for whatever period of time they think is appropriate. (One month is an unusually short period of time for a topic ban. A year with the right to appeal after 6 months is more typical.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your AP2 topic ban request is very unfair. But I don't want to continue this conflict with you, so I mean I won't edit AP2 for a while. I fully understand U.S. politics, and I have not done anything wrong to deserve the AP2 topic ban.--Storm598 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing with AP2 topic ban. It's just that I fully understand American politics, but it's not my main contribution, so I mean that I will avoid editing AP2 documents for more than a month. This is purely voluntary and does not require any ban.--Storm598 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly, I don't think there's any reason for me to get 'AP2 topic ban'. But just that I won't edit the AP2 document if possible for a while. Do you understand?

This just means that I have lost interest in contributing to American political documents, and there is no reason why I should be banished in American politics.--Storm598 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, there's a reason: you don't know much about it, but you think that you do. That's much more potentially dangerous to the quality of our product then the person who knows nothing, and, knowing that they know nothing, stays away from the topic area. With you, someone is going to have to check every edit you make to make sure that you're not transferring the incorrect information you're getting from "Korea's biggest blog" to our articles. That's why you need to be AP2 topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, let's turn it down a notch. BMK, I think you've made your point, there's no need to make this about Storm598's level of knowledge at this point. What's important here is whether Storm598 is able to abide by verifiability policy and edit constructively. To that extent, I'm concerned by the discussion at Talk:California Democratic Party, specifically here, where they appear to be advocating for content changes entirely based on their own original opinions and arguments, and here where they make an argument about changing the political ideology classification based on the state of Korean Wikipedia. Storm598, you need to review our policy regarding original research. If you do not abide by it, it will result in restrictions on your editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I understood what you said. In the future, we may edit American political documents occasionally, but we will be careful not to violate the verifiability policy.--Storm598 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while Storm598's editing of AP2 articles is a problem, it's not the only problem. For instance, Storm598 has been removing the Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea from numerous articles, many of which are obviously appropriate targets for it. Their edits have been reverted not just by me, but by other editors as well, at least one of which has become so fed by with Storm598's behavior, that he refuses to discuss with them on their onw talk page insisting -- as I do -- that such discussions must take place only on article talk pages. [2].

The more I dig into Storm598's edits, the more problems I find.

At several points in this discussion Storm598 has said that their editing had recently become "too aggressive", or words to that effect, but I think this had been the state of Storm598's editing from the very beginning. This is an editor who created their account on 8 December 2020, [3], and less then three days later began creating political categories and populating them, and a few days letter was moving articles [4], based on their own perceptions of Taiwanese politics. (They moved Liberalism and progressivism in Taiwan to Progressivism in Taiwan.) That is very aggressive behavior from a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from Jang Jun-ha's problem, is there a policy that new users should not create political categories? And did I make a 'POV' contribution to Taiwanese politics?--Storm598 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

U.S. political documents say they will be careful not to violate verifiability policies. Why are you leading me to another problem? I don't want to cause any more disputes with you.--Storm598 (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that your editing is inherently causing disruption. And, no, there is no policy that new users should not create new categories -- although there probably should be -- but if, in the fullness of time, your editing is called into question, then your earlier very aggressive choice to begin by doing things that most edtiors don't get to for quite a while raises serious questions about both your judgment and your provenance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There appear to be some WP:CIR issues here that go beyond the scope of an AP2 topic ban, based on both a limited sampling of their contributions and their comments here, beyond simple linguistic difficulties (of which I'm assuming their use of "we" was an example, rather than being indicative of a shared account). Their understanding of basic policy seems inadequate for some of the edits that they're making. I'd like some confirmation that they have a basic grasp of our verifiability, weight, and reliable sourcing requirements. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer this. However, I will be more careful in editing English Wikipedia in the future. I have often revealed reliable sources when adding new content, but for the time being, I will refrain from controversial edits and show you that I have the basic ability to edit WP.--Storm598 (talk)

Storm598, that's a good start, and I'd oppose blocking on those grounds. I still think that perhaps a time-limited topic ban from American Politics might be good for you, as per what Elijahandskip said. By "time-limited", I mean something of a limited duration, that's just meant to keep you away from a topic area you're passionate about for a little bit. We're all continually learning how to be better editors here, even the most experienced users. Would you agree to a voluntary time-limited topic ban from the AP2 area, so you can focus on other articles, and demonstrate your competency? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment to Storm598. So I am an outside editor who doesn’t know too much about the events that took place. Storm598, a T-Ban can be very useful. From a brief read, it appears this is similar to what I thought for a long time. I am actually currently under T-Ban on Post-1992 US politics for 6 months, and I am also the editor who started a major (60k+ byte) US politics article back in October as well as the editor who started a 55 page long Rfc (politics related). My T-Ban started on March 2, and sense then, I have felt kind of good. From the look of the discussion, you will have a T-Ban, so prepare for it and don’t bury yourself any more than you have too. Right now would be an idea time to just walk away from the discussion and accept the discussion once it is finished. If you do that, you will probably help yourself in the long run. Also, since you seem to be similar to how I thought even as little as a week ago, feel free to message me on my talk page. I would be happy to mentor you and help you become a better Wikipedia editor. Hopefully this helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Beyond My Ken, just one thing--this isn't Facebook. I see your opponent deflecting in one way after another, like in that "Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" discussion on their talk page, but please don't feel the need to respond to every little twist and turn--especially not here. You know, from experience, that the longer an ANI thread gets the less likely it is to get resolved. Let the community handle it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies OK, I'll defer to the advice from you and Rosguil and back off, looking for the community to deal with Storm598's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban per BMK et al. Editors above will know that it is not my wont to support restrictions which exclude others from editing Wikipedia. But, having just been notified of changes to a large number of articles on my watchlist, which clearly indicate that Storm598 doesn't get the points above, but has simply moved their focus away from American politics, I must support not only a topic ban from AP2; and also from Categories and/or from East Asian politics (broadly construed). I would also Support an indef block per CIR. The editor was warned about nesting categories on 20 December 2020, and again on 9 March 2021, but appears not have gotten the message. They continue to add new sub-categories[5] which they then use to categorise articles under the parent, without sourcing in the article itself. This is clear POV pushing, and a clear failure to get it. They were advised above by Symmachus Auxiliarus to be careful, and agreed to not make controversial edits. Yet here we are. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is an excessive measure. When it comes to Asian politics, I just created categories for convenience. If that's a problem, I won't create any more categories for the time being.--Storm598 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And the Shōwa Statism category was not intended for POV, but for convenience to readers who see Wikipedia. However, if this is a problem within Wikipedia, I will not use this Shōwa Statism category anymore.--Storm598 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the documents I used in the "Category:Shōwa Statism" were written in the "Statism in Shōwa Japan". Kōdōha and Tōseiha were also political factions in the Japanese Army. I didn't do POV editing. However, I will no longer create categories after this point in order not to be unfairly ban.--Storm598 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like an over-eager new user rather than a bad-faith editor. I agree with them that having Centrism, Conservatism, Modern liberalism, and Progressivism for various US state Democratic Party ideologies is a bit silly. That said, until they are more experienced, what they need to do is to stop making mass changes without first getting consensus. I'm guessing this is an East Asian editor; until they are more experienced they may be better off avoiding American Politics completely (as that is always contentions on-wiki). 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• The editor has said in a number of places that they are South Korean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

3 Month Block

It's ridiculous to block indefinitely. I have never made a POV contribution in East Asian political documents.

But if my editing is a problem, I'll agree to block my account for less than a year. Because on second thought, I think I have pushed my opinion a little too far or contributed a little bit POV in American political editing. But I'm not trying to edit the English Wikipedia maliciously. But I think I haven't mastered the rules and atmosphere of Wikipedia yet.

The reason why I brought up the 3-month Block out of the blue is to understand the atmosphere of English Wikipedia for 3 months. However, I still disagree with the arms cutoff on me or the ban on a particular topic.--Storm598 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a request for disciplinary action against me. It's to lead my daily life rather than disciplinary action. I don't want to get involved too deeply in this matter because I have something personal.--Storm598 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I will not edit Wikipedia very often anymore. However, I think it is too much to ban an excessive period of block or edit a particular topic.--Storm598 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Something urgent has come up right now, so I'll log-out for a while. (To be honest, I was hurt, and I don't want to aggravate my mental illness while watching the English Wikipedia for a while.) Apart from anything else, I've never edited Wikipedia maliciously. Nevertheless, I am asking for a three-month block to myself. Please do not block weapons or take ban measures on certain topics.--Storm598 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if I come back later, I will come back more mature. Please do not deprive me of my editing rights indefinitely or for too long....--Storm598 (talk)

Just in case anyone gets the wrong impression, Storm598 has not been blocked or sanctioned in any way. What they're calling a "block" amounts to them putting a "semi-retired" tag on their user page, along with the comment "I didn't stop my Wikipedia career. I might come back one day. But now I don't want to edit Wikipedia, and I'm thinking of doing something other than wiki for a while," plus the comments they've made here, which seem to indicate that they plan not to edit for 3 months. There is no sanction at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts

Template:Formerly

After an unsuccessful attempt at discussion, I am seeking community review of two WP:DRV closures by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 (closed)

In the Squad case, I closed the AfD as "delete". King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Overturn to redirect. Those who !voted "delete" at the AfD have failed to advance an argument as to why a redirect would not be appropriate." In doing so, King of Hearts failed to properly do their job as DRV closer, which is to assess whether consensus exists at DRV to overturn an AfD closure, and if so, to implement that consensus. Instead, they merely inserted their own view about how the AfD should properly have been closed, without even attempting to assess the consensus of the DRV discussion (i.e., they cast a supervote). If they had done their job, they would have either found that there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, or even consensus to endorse it. In both cases, the article's history would have remained deleted, consistent with the AfD consensus. This would not have prevented the later creation of the redirect from Squad (app) that now exists and with which I agree.

King of Hearts' comments indicate that they severely misunderstand applicable deletion policy if they insist that "There is no such thing as a consensus to delete at AfD per se". But in our policy and practice there is indeed such a thing as a "delete" consensus at AfD. It means that the history of the deleted article is suppressed. All attempts to change policy to the contrary have failed (cf. Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal)). That was the consensus at both the AfD and probably also at the DRV. I am concerned that King of Hearts is attempting to reintroduce such failed proposals, which do not have community consensus, by misusing the DRV process.

Similarly, in the United Airlines Flight 1175 case, Black Kite closed the AfD as "delete", and King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD." But in this case as well, opinions in the DRV discussion were divided and there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. And again, King of Hearts did not even attempt to assess consensus but merely cast a supervote in favor of what they considered the right outcome.

As a collaborative project, Wikipedia works only if all, especially admins, respect consensus and the deletion process. Admins must not use their special user rights (in this case, the undelete right) to bypass this process. I therefore propose that the community overturns these DRV closures and lets another admin close these DRV discussions. Sandstein 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the participants in previous discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@MER-C, Dial911, MrsSnoozyTurtle, Luciapop, Cunard, Mazurkevin, SmokeyJoe, S Marshall, Andrew Davidson, SportingFlyer, Hut 8.5, Stifle, Cuoxo, and Spartaz: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) and/or its deletion review. Sandstein 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite, Andy Dingley, SportingFlyer, Ansh666, Eherot, IJBall, Stormy clouds, A lad insane, Petebutt, Ahunt, Dannythewikiman, ZLEA, Mangoe, Jax 0677, Andrewgprout, Dfadden, George Ho, Dingruogu, Jetstreamer, AEMoreira042281, EnjoysButter, Champion, Davey2010, Donaldd23, DonFB, Icewhiz, and Samf4u: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175. Sandstein 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to the deletion review of the above. Sandstein 12:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that I was left off of the notifications, not sure if anyone else was. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• To me, the first close does indeed read as a superclose - there isn't a consensus in the DRV that that position was held, and if the closer felt it was the case, they should have !voted themselves to stress that position. I would reverse it. The second close, however, is significantly more legitimate. In base numbers, it's somewhat "no consensus", but the DRV policy strength arguments made by the the restore supporters is significantly clearer. I may have gone NC myself, but I don't believe the close was bad. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The first close reads as a !supervote to me too - There wasn't any consensus to overturn and if KoH felt the AFD shouldn't of been closed he should of stated that in the DRV as opposed to closing/overturning. The second one - Opinions were divided and sources were also provided although a discussion then occurred over those sources. Personally it's a balance of No Consensus and Restore so don't really see a problem with that one. First DRV was wrong tho. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was involved in both of these and I was surprised by the outcome of both of them, especially the Squad (app) outcome. On numbers alone, that was an endorse/decline 5, relist 2. The United Airlines 1175 discussion was closer to an endorse/restore no consensus. I really only have an issue with that because the topic falls far below our notability guidelines for aviation incidents, it's turned into an exceptionally crufty article which completely overplays the incident, and I've been criticised for taking it to AfD immediately by two !voters in the new AfD. Even given my involvement, I'd recommend overturning the Squad (app) one. I'd like the United Airlines one to be vacated, but I'm even more involved in that one. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both look like super votes to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the validity of them individually, there were rather a lot of challenges to King of Hearts' AfD closes last year, by amongst others experienced editors TonyBallioni, PMC, ArnoldReinhold, HighKing, and JBL: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. I can see he's been inactive for long periods of time since 2014, perhaps this should be taken as a gentle suggestion to refresh himself on our current norms on closing and consensus? – Joe (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That is an additional concern, Joe - the points often aren't unreasonable as such, but in quite a few (not all) of the cases linked to somewhere in this discussion would belong as !votes, not closes. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of the drv closes should be vacated and reclosed. KoH’s closes can be added as votes, because that is what they are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• A redirect is fine as people searching for Squad App will get to know (more) about its acquisition by Twitter. However, like Sandstein I also find KoH's DRV closure decision is out of line. A deleted article's history remains suppressed. The discussion here is about KoH's DRV closures and I feel they are not shy of casting Supervotes. Dial911 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• The first DRV doesn't look like a consensus to redirect at all. It looks more like a consensus to endorse the original close - I see there is an attribution/copyright issue but the endorsers clearly considered that aspect. Ditto on the second DRV - it's clear that not everybody agrees that the new sources justify restoration, one could call that a consensus to endorse or no consensus but it's not a consensus to restore, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both of them are supervotes, especially the first one. I closed the Flight 1175 one and there was no other way it could be closed - if significant information has since come to light the correct close would be "Endorse but allow recreation". I see that the subsequent AfD is turning into a trainwreck as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination)) as WP:AIRCRASH ones often do. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• If I were to have voted myself in either the initial discussion or the DRV for the Squad case, I would have voted to either turn to a redirect or to relist the original AFD debate. That being said, I would not have closed the discussion as KoH did. As an admin, if we have our own opinion on the discussion at hand, we should vote and not close the discussion ourselves. There's nothing wrong with thinking the consensus was incorrect, and to vote accordingly. There is something wrong with closing a discussion against consensus. I would overturn that one. The second one, on the UAL Flight 1175, it's close enough to the border that it's within range of closing either way; I think that one is okay as it. --Jayron32 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps I should not have used the word "overturn" to describe the result of the Squad (app) DRV. However, the fact of the matter is that consensus is not required to create a redirect at a previously deleted page, or to restore the history under a redirect (assuming that the deletion was not for content-related violations). As neither the AfD nor the DRV supports a consensus that the redirect is inappropriate, the correct course of action is to allow the redirect. But why so much fuss over the words used rather than the end result, which Sandstein admits would have been the same? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Under what policy does the creation of a redirect nullify the previous AfD deletion of earlier revisions? You state that "consensus is not required" for such an undeletion, but WP:UDP doesn't support this claim (nor does Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, which refers to UDP). Unilaterally overturning a consensus-based and consensus-endorsed deletion should not be done lightly and needs a much better reason than a claim that "consensus is not required" without anything to back this up. Fram (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like this practice is supported by consensus, but no one has thought to add it to an official policy page. It might be worth reopening this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  You have more people here in this discussion saying that it isn't OK than was in that discussion from 8 years ago. Apparently, consensus has changed. --Jayron32 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  So let's open an RfC to clarify the policy then. I've been following that interpretation since there has not been any consensus since to overturn it, but let's decide as a community what the right interpretation is once and for all and enshrine it in policy. I'm happy to follow whatever is decided going forward. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't think I ever said you weren't doing what you thought to be correct; but it seems clear that the practice is not well supported. Policy documents practice and does not determine it, and you have a LOT of very experienced admins here saying that one should not be restoring an article history of a deleted article; we don't have any written policy that even says you should be doing so, and you've pointed to an 8-year-old discussion with minimal participation that was not documented anywhere obvious. Based on the fact that basically no one knew such a policy existed, except you and the few people that participated in the discussion, it wasn't documented anywhere, and that enough admins clearly don't see it as practice, it would be advisable to stop doing it. Of course, if we need to have an entire RFC just to force one admin to stop doing something no one else does, we can, but do we need to??? --Jayron32 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Are they saying that because this is what they believe policy to be, or what they believe policy should be? It appears that I am outnumbered on the first front, but I think it is a rather sensible thing to allow restoration of non-sensitive content underneath an existing page (whether article or redirect) and it's worth a discussion to see where the community stands on the merits of the issue, i.e. I think they might be amenable on the second front. But either way, it enshrines it in policy so that there will be no more disagreements in interpretation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  The 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion was about how to handle discussions where the community consensus was to redirect an article. That doesn't apply here. But you already knew that. So I'm not exactly sure why you brought it up, since you already knew it was about a different situation than the one we are discussing today. --Jayron32 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion is irrelevant, because it's about history-only restores. You recreated the redirect yourself (with an obvious supervote which re-litigated the AfD, which isn't allowed) and unnecessarily restored the history with it, which practically no-one asked for. Even if that had not been the case, it was a seven-year old discussion at a backwater page in which only three people supported, and the relevant question to this issue ("does this include history under redirects?") went unanswered. Black Kite (talk)

  So let's have the discussion then. I followed what I believed was a reasonable interpretation of policy, and apparently there is disagreement here. So let's clarify it and establish a policy for history undeletion for the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  King of Hearts, the end result is not the same. If you had correctly closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "endorse", and then created a redirect over the deleted article, there would have been no problem. The problem is that (a) you closed a DRV discussion contrary to policy by imposing your own preference and ignoring the discussion's consensus, and (b) misused your administrator privileges to undelete a page's history that according to policy and the outcome of both the AfD and DRV ought to have remained deleted. This is a matter of administrator misconduct if we get down to it, and you should take it much more seriously. Sandstein 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Sandstein. I feel like the entire point of the discussion was missed. That DRV asked a very specific question which had everything to do with history and attribution. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with going in and creating a fresh redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Creating a new redirect (with no history) would be plausibly allowed even with an AFD, as the prior AFD did not delete a redirect, and policy only says that creating a new article with substantially the same content; a redirect is a different thing entirely. Arguably, deletion is primarily about removing an article history from public view, so recreating a history to turn it into a redirect is clearly against policy. But creating a redirect without undeleting is not overturning the AFD in this instance. --Jayron32 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, a closer can always consider a compromise close , even if one had not been previously suggested. I If I thought an article ought to be deled and it were kept as a redirect or a merge, I would normally see no reaaon to challenge it. If I wanted it as a full article, I probably would accept it also, and try to build up the article again if possible. In nominating, if I think somethin isn't even worth a redirect or a merge, I say so. If someone comes up wirth a better idea than mine, I dont; call it a supervote. There sems to be a great deal of concern about the details of copyright. There are oither ways of indicating attribution than retainingthe edits----such as apending a list of the other editors in a note. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of King of Hearts' closes correctly assessed the strengths of the DRV participants' arguments.

  King of Hearts correctly assessed the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app). King of Hearts followed the global consensus on the matter. Both the policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and the 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect support King of Hearts' close. The 2015 RfC was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. From Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

  Before creating the AfD, AfD nominator MER-C (talk · contribs) redirected Squad (app) to Twitter with the history preserved under the redirect. The redirect was undone, after which MER-C took the article to AfD. Had the redirect not been reverted, Squad (app) would currently exist as a redirect with the history preserved. No editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) explained why the page's history should have been deleted. Since the article's history did not contain BLP or copyright violations, the policy and the global consensus support its restoration.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: After Sandstein closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) as "delete", I could have requested at WP:REFUND that Squad (app) be moved to my userspace or Draft:Squad (app). Would that request have been denied? On what basis would the request have been denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at WP:REFUND for improvements or for use in other articles. From WP:REFUND (my bolding):

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

  Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". After completing a merge of the article's content to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, I would have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• King of Hearts' close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 accurately assessed the consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator and DRV participants presented "significant new information". Five DRV participants (Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG) supported restoring the article or allowing recreation. Two DRV participants (SportingFlyer and Hut 8.5) did not support restoring the article or allowing recreation. Closing as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cunard The consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_46#RFC:_delete_and_redirect was in answer to the question "Should our standard practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?". The Squad AfD was not closed as redirect - it was closed as Delete, so that RfC is irrelevant. The purpose of DRV is not to re-litigate an AfD, it is to determine whether it was closed properly in the first place, which that one was. Yes, of course you could have asked for the article to be WP:REFUNDed to you at that point, but that's not relevant either to a discussion about KoH's DRV close, which is something we appear to be getting off the point of. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The RfC is relevant in explaining why the AfD was incorrectly closed. Squad (app) was proposed to be converted into a redirect, and the RfC consensus was that the standard practice should not be to delete article histories when a conversion happens (or is proposed with no one explaining why a redirect should not be made). The article history should be deleted only when there is a BLP violation, copyright violation, or other reason that makes retaining the history undesirable. No such reason was presented at the AfD, so the history should have been retained.

  Since you note that a WP:REFUND would have been fine, to avoid these contentious discussions, I wish I did this instead of opening the DRV:

  1. After Squad (app) was deleted by the AfD, I should have requested that Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. After draftication, I would have completed the merge and redirected Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.
  Would this violate any policies? Additionally, if this ANI discussion results in the history of Squad (app) being deleted, would I be violating any policies if I did this:
  1. I ask at WP:REFUND for Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. I redirect Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. (I would not do a merge since the merge is already completed.)
  3. I redirect Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with an edit summary noting that the history is now at Draft:Squad (app) and that a merge has been completed.
  I think my proposed draftication approach would be compliant with WP:REFUND practices. Even though it is not the main point of the discussion, it is important for me to ask this here to ensure I am not violating any policies if I take this approach now or in the future.

  Cunard (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• You would have needed to properly attribute the merge, and it may be controversial because you're attempting an end-around of a contentious deletion discussion and DRV. The least controversial thing to do IMO would probably to "merge" the information by rewriting the blurb in the list completely from scratch yourself to avoid any attribution issues. As noted above, that RfC isn't on point here, since that didn't deal with content deleted at AfD. Also, we are getting away from the point here, which is why the DRV consensus was ignored without explanation, so a sub-heading may be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The merged material is properly attributed: "merged content from Squad (app). From this comment, 'the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22.'" I will not rewrite the merged content since it is properly attributed and meets the content policies. My comment was to ask whether a WP:REFUND is fine after an AfD is closed as "delete" so that I can do a merge. As long as I'm not violating any policies, for future AfDs, I plan to ask for WP:REFUNDs to avoid contentious DRVs like this one. When I supported and completed a merge at the AfD, I only wanted to improve Wikipedia. Merging material about a non-notable acquired company to a company's list of acquisitions should be uncontroversial. I never expected it to become this controversial. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• 1) I have asked the closing admin's permission before refunding something which was just closed as delete before, especially where I've brought sources to an AfD, then I bring that to WP:REFUND. If it's just a simple GNG not being met, it should work. I assume DRV would be the case to go otherwise, but it's not in its purview - possibly a Village Pump question? 2) Whether the content could be merged was never the controversy, it was how it should be done, especially considered there have been sanctions applied in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE: Squad (app). I find this a little frustrating, there being a trivial root cause from which a number of non-ideal actions have resulted trying to fix the problem without addressing the root cause.

The root cause is the AfD nominator:

Non-notable startup, future coverage unlikely because it was acquired by Twitter. User:MER-C 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

failing WP:BEFORE, and WP:ATD-M, seriously written policy matters. Everyone has ignored that policy. User:Cunard boldly tried to fix in a non-ideal way. User:Sandstein, I observed long term, holds little respect for Cunard's style of doing things like this. User:King of Hearts I know as someone who tries to implement the right outcome, even if it is not what everyone is saying, and this is somewhere near the boundary of Supervote versus "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE United Airlines Flight 1175. I Endorse the DRV close. Has the close been altered since the start of this thread. "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a perfect reading of the discussion. There are new sources, someone thinks the old AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, this is a trivial decision that should not have come to DRV but was actionable at REFUND. This should NOT be read as an "Overturn" of the old AfD. Perhaps,re-word to "Endorse, but restore without prejudice against a new AfD". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• My attention was directed to this discussion because I apparently have disagreed with a King of Hearts decision in the past. I do not remember the incident and the list of diffs included is long. Discussion closing is one of the more thankless tasks on Wikipedia, and those brave enough to attempt it deserve the benefit of the doubt. I looked at the outcomes in the two articles mentioned here. One retains an aviation incident that recently got heavy press coverage, the other has been changed to a redirect that everyone seems to agree is appropriate. The first is being reviewed again. The issue with the second, if I understand things correctly, is whether the the history, pretty trivial in this case, should have been retained. I fail to see any way in which our readers are remotely damaged by either of these decisions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Perhaps both sides could reflect on how things could be handled with less drama in the future, but it seems to me that the amount of energy being put in to this discussion is excessive, given the minuscule impact of the incidents in question on the project. --agr (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I requested the second DRV, but I neglected to specifically state up front that I was seeking a restoration with history, so that may have caused some initial confusion that I only clarified later. My take is: SportingFlyer was clearly defending the prior AfD; Hut 8.5 was skeptical and suggested a draft; Cunard and DCG specifically voted "Restore" (along with myself); Jclemens and SmokeyJoe had "Endorse" votes that are not clear because I was not clear up front, but they did not oppose getting a refund and recreating. So I don't think the close with restore was inconsistent with the discussion, much less against consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think that what's happening here is that KoH is giving WP:ATD a bit too much weight in his closes. It's leading to cases where KoH sees a consensus to delete but finds that ATD undermines it. KoH -- the community is aware of ATD, and is able to apply it appropriately. Where the community decides to delete content, it's right for sysops to implement that decision.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I recognize S Marshall's view as valid, but I argue the other side. KoH is one of few admins who respect WP:ATD for its standing. It is clearly and strongly written into WP:Deletion policy, which is one of the most black letter policies, and especially so from the standing of WP:DRV. ATD definitely undermines an apparent consensus at AfD where the nominator and participants are in apparent blindness to an obvious ATD-M option. The AfD community seems insufficiently aware of ATD. There are insufficient speedy closes due to nominators failing to follow the AfD WP:BEFORE instructions. When Cunard raised a policy basis undermining the AfD from its beginning, others, especially the closer, were wrong to ignore him. I agree with agr that people should reflect on how things could be handled with less drama. My suggestion is that a merge proposal mid-AfD should necessitate a relist for a minimum seven days, pinging all prior participants, and asking the nominator why they didn't consider that merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:ATD is subject to interpretation and application by the community in deletion and deletion-adjacent discussion, and we interpret and apply policies by consensus. As S Marshall correctly says, the community is aware of ATD and is able to apply it. Closers should not substitute their own views.
      In any event, policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. If policy is at odds with how a matter is ordinarily treated by consensus, that means that the policy should be changed to reflect this. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Disagree with User:Stifle that Policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. Instead: Policy is merely a codification documentation of the community's ordinary preferred way to treat particular matters. And on Squad (app), there are multiple facets of non-preferred actions in this story, and falling back to policy as worded should be strongly recommended. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe, I agree with a relist when there is a merge proposal mid-AfD. I suggested a merge as an alternative to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Review and pinged the AfD participants who had already commented. Two of the AfD participants switched from "delete" to "merge". None of the participants have opposed a merge or said the article history should be deleted.

      I am hopeful that participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) would have been supportive of a merge/redirect had they been pinged and had the AfD been relisted. I am particularly hopeful because the AfD nominator had previously considered an WP:ATD-R approach by redirecting Squad (app) to Twitter. The redirect was undone because Squad was not mentioned at Twitter. If the AfD nominator had known about List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, the AfD nominator likely would have redirected Squad to there. No arguments at the AfD were made against an WP:ATD-M so it is incorrect to say that the community had applied and rejected it for this AfD.

      I agree with you and agr that this is too much drama for a very trivial issue. In the future, instead of starting a DRV, I will request a WP:REFUND of the article history to draftspace to complete a merge (my full plan here). The article's history will exist in draftspace instead of mainspace which is not ideal but it accomplishes the same goal of having access to the material in order to complete a merge, without this drama.

      Cunard (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Cunard I think that is a reasonable idea (as long as there are no problems with the hstory, of course). SmokeyJoe There are already enough people whose main occupation at Wikipedia is gaming our deletion processes (not people in this dicussion, I hasten to add), the last thing we want is to give them another weapon to do that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I don’t think that relisting due to the raising of an obvious merge targets not yet mentioned is a weakness to gaming, it would be a positive feature. Is ATD-M policy or not? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Obvious and useful merge targets, yes, absolutely. Any merge target? Not a good idea - we know how that will go. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I would leave that to a competent relister (and relister s must be qualified to close, including UNINVOLVED) to decide. In this case, the target was obscure, not easy to find by a content search for the title (squad), but obvious when discovered. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
            • So what are our expectations for delete !voters at AfD, then? Imagine that I'm reading an AfD and I agree that the article should be deleted. Should I type out: "Delete. I have been unable to identify a suitable merge target. I have considered the merge target proposed by editor A, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate. I have also been unable to identify a suitable redirect target. I have considered the redirect target proposed by editor B, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate." Or can I just type: "Delete" in the happy expectation that the closer will assume that I've read the preceding discussion with the right amount of care and attention and that I'm not a drooling idiot? Because if it's the former, then I think we have a problem with our processes.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
              • The answer is at WP:BEFORE, and in particular #C.4. The expectation is that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. Subsequent participants assume the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. When they say “delete” it is based on the assumption that there is no suitable merge target. When later someone brings up a suitable merge target, it reveals that the nominator did not do their duty, and that the other participants were working under a false assumption. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
                • I don't see it that way because, although ATD has the force of policy, BEFORE doesn't. It's not even a guideline. It's an information page, which editors are free to disregard, so when !voting we can't assume that BEFORE has been complied with. (And some editors are new. It's always good practice to check.)—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • We can’t assume the nominator has followed BEFORE, WP:Okay, and indeed, MER-C may have followed BEFORE point by point and just failed to find the kind of obscure merge target, and indeed, trying searching Wikipedia content for “squad” is not helpful. But, late in the AfD, once someone has raised an as yet unexpected but in-hindsight-obvious merge target, the earlier participants need that to be brought to their attention. What Cunard did was non-ideal. Closing regardless of the new information was non-ideal. Cunard and Sandstein not quickly and simply agreeing to a redirect with the history available was non-ideal. King of Hearts boldly imposing the obvious solution was non-ideal. And more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• The closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad_(app)_(closed) is patently obviously out of line with the consensus of the discussion, and King of Hearts has substituted their own opinion, which should have been cast as a !vote, for a correct neutral reading of consensus. The clear and obvious consensus of that discussion was to endorse, and the closure should be vacated and the discussion reclosed accordingly.
  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United_Airlines_Flight_1175_(closed) did not have consensus one way or another. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing_reviews states that a no-consensus result at a DRV of a deletion discussion may be closed as endorse or as relist, at the closer's discretion. However, King of Hearts chose not to follow this process and instead restored the article without prejudice to an RFD. This was not an option open to them, and accordingly this closure should also be vacated and the discussion reclosed with one of the permitted two possible outcomes. I do not especially care which. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I consider that last point a little unfair on them. That DRV wasn't the "AfD close review" type, it was the "new information type". A relist would therefore have been inappropriate and, frankly, bizarre. An endorse of the original AfD close can occur in this category whether or not the article is recreated. I think a reasonable equivalent interpretation would be "not restore or restore" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nosebagbear: I am sorry, I've possibly been unclear. The closure instructions say that a no consensus DRV must be closed as an overturn if the deletion was a speedy, and goes to closer discretion if it was an XFD. That was the distinction I was looking to make, not a question of new information or not. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sandstein on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed): They sought to prevent that foreseeable consensus outcome, which they do not contest, by merging part of the article elsewhere and now invoking attribution policy. But that policy was not intended to allow individual editors to prevent the community from deleting content by consensus. Consensus does not trump the attribution requirement of the Creative Commons license. King of Hearts was right in restoring it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• That's not correct, there is no need for the edit history to satisfy the Creative Commons licence. This edit does that. Hut 8.5 12:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Better to keep the history (even if the content of the revisions has to be deleted) as it keeps updated if usernames change and ensures any attributions using the "permanent link" still function. That could even be extended to other deleted pages where the reason for deletion is notability and content has been copied (or could be) to another site, not necessarily within Wikipedia. Pages without a potential redirect target would have to be moved somewhere and blanked. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia still recommends just using the page name, but when that is done the link is broken when disambiguation is necessary or there is a new primary topic for the title, or when the source page is deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure about the 2nd example, but the first is pretty clearly a supervote. I'm not going to second guess his motivation, but the close doesn't represent the consensus as given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was pinged to this discussion by Joe Roe as someone who has raised a similar concern before. The discussion Joe Roe mentions that I was involved in ([17][18][19][20]) was very similar to the Squad (app) case that Sandstein raises above: the closure advanced an argument not defended in the discussion, and would have been more appropriate as a contribution to that discussion (rather than a closure). I think extracting consensus from a deletion discussion without injecting one's own views is a real skill; I think concern about KoH's mastery of this skill is legitimate. (I have on a few occasions looked through the list of overdue RfCs to try to help out, and quickly determined that I do not have this skill, FWIW.) I have not looked at the UA1175 case. --JBL (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is all this space (okay, at least half of it) *really* being wasted to discuss if a redirected article should have its history deleted or not? This is the course of action suggested by Peter James (without any bolding, but !votes and all that) in the DRV. I also suggested it as a possible (and likely best) way forward. No one in the DRV or AfD provided a policy-based reason why undeleting the history would make the encyclopedia worse. No one. And is anyone here going to really claim that deletion here is a better outcome than a redirect? Anyone? We got to the right place. I don't think there is an actual argument otherwise anyone has advanced (I'll note this hasn't gone to RfD...). The rest is process. Viva la WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. I think I worded my rationale poorly, leading people to think I was supervoting (i.e. basing my closure on the AfD rather than the DRV), but what I meant to say was: The DRV "endorse" !voters failed to explain how the "delete" !voters in the AfD articulated a policy-based reason why the history must be removed. The sole rationale given for deletion was based on notability, not content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I strenuously disagree. Restoring an article is a use of admin tools; a better justification is needed to WP:IAR for that than just "eh, what's the difference?" - especially since that works both ways; creating a new redirect would have been entirely in line with policy and would have correctly reflected both the consensus of the DRV and the consensus at the AfD. Furthermore, I absolutely think that deletion is a better outcome than a redirect; retaining history that is of no value means that any editor, at any time, could revert the redirect and restore material that was legitimately deleted via consensus on an AfD and whose deletion was unambiguously upheld in a DRV. --Aquillion (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• How can you know that it will have no value? And yeah, they could also recreate the article. The only thing that would stop that is page protection. The history being there or not doesn't change that. But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. Yes, WP:REFUND exists, but lots of folks aren't familiar with that. And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? If so, doesn't that make the AfD votes flawed? If not, I invite you to send the redirect to RfD... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• How can you know that it will have no value? ... But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. ... And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? These are all arguments that seek to re-litigate the AFD (arguing that the deleted article may have value, arguing that it may become notable in the future, arguing for a redirect instead of deletion.) By making them, you are overtly requesting a WP:SUPERVOTE to override an AFD whose unambiguous consensus you disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's try again. Do you feel having a redirect is wrong/improper to have here? If so, can you articulate a policy/guideline-based case? As far as I can tell, no one in the AfD provided even a statement that it would be bad to have a redirect, let alone a policy-based reason not to have one. AfD is not a vote. Strength of argument trumps numbers. And there are no arguments at all against the redirect. Further, the redirect is exactly the right thing to have here. There is no way it would be deleted at RfD. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree that the community understands what ATD is and how to apply it. In this case there was consensus that the article should go, that there was no objection to creating a redirect in its place, but that the page history should not be restored. All of this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for a deletion discussion to reach. I don't think overruling it was a good idea, especially since DRV is the venue to go when you feel consensus has been overruled on a whim. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  If this is about Squad, there was no consensus on whether the history should be deleted, and no reason not to restore it as a redirect. The only apparent consensus was based on discussion before an alternative was suggested (and it's also common for editors to participate in WP:AFD without having read the comments already in the discussion or the guidelines they refer to in their own comments). Is there consensus that deletion of a page can only be reviewed to reconsider whether there should be a separate article? Can this be reviewed at deletion review or is it now necessary to request a new process? Peter James (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  This is simply the process for challenging whether Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed) was closed correctly. (and also another.). BEFORE and ATD-M are important arts of the story, but the real question is whether King of Hearts closed the DRV correctly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  The reason I gave very little weight to the "endorse" !voters as far as the edit history is concerned is that they simply stated that the AfD process was correctly carried out. Sure - but where has anyone advanced an argument as to why the content is unsuitable for public view? I think it gets to the crux of the matter: To prevent a merge/redirect, are "delete" !voters at AfD required to indicate why the content of an article needs to be suppressed, in addition to establishing why the subject is not notable? For me the answer is yes, and a satisfactory argument to that end has not been presented either at AfD or DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ultimately I just don't agree that "Overturn, participants should have made other arguments" is within the scope of DRV. It wouldn't be for DRV !voters, and it certainly isn't for a DRV closing statement. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse both DRV closes. In the first case, there were compelling legal reasons to preserve the history and these constiture a strong argument which overrides a headcount. In the other case, there was a reasonable consensus to restore the content to assist review of the new evidence and the close reflected this. Both closes were pragmatic and reasonable but should perhaps have been explained better to avoid this further discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly, this looks like a disagreement over process that ignores the actual encyclopaedic outcome. I don't see a problem with King's actions. Good faith disputes over the procedural details can be resolved by one-to-one discussion. In short: guys, please discuss this over a $BEVERAGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• For Swarm, I think that there was enough support in the DRV for a redirect, along with extensive discussion on just how to carry it out , to justify the close. I and Cunard tend to be on opposite sides at deletion discussions more often than not, but I agree with what he did here and how he defended it. The close in the original afd did not take that sufficiently into account. A close should explicitly or implicitly take account of all reasonable alternativesthat have been suggested. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For UA1175, the DRV close was correct. The consensus at the discussion was to allow re-creation (& that's just what I said at the time) DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- note that United Airlines flight 1175 AfD #2 was closed as keep. So the outcome of this should not change that without good reason. My read on this kerfuffle is that it's much to do about whether the history should be kept hidden. For the record, the history on United Airlines flight 1175 was not restored, and that needs to be fixed because I included some of the original content in the expanded article. As to WP:REFUND, I did consider whether to do that or DRv to get the original history restored, but REFUND says it is for "deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator", while DRv is for new information, so I decided to go with the latter. But I think I should have asked for restoration to a redirect with history; this way I would have been able to add the new content on my own schedule, instead of having to stay up late to cram it into a restored article that was already back at AfD. Dhaluza (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I wasn't aware of this discussion until a few minutes ago, but at least one editor thinks a recent RfC I posted is related: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Attribution when copying within Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Appeal request

• List of restrictions

This is an appeal for my current DYK restrictions to be removed under WP:SO. I have waited the 6 months required and upon reflection, I do see how my attitude and style that led to the ban could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing. I have in that time been more involved in collaboration, the main one being for FC Santa Claus. I have also been less reckless as I have in the past by ensuring I asked @Primefac: for consent any time I was thinking of doing something that might be close to violating my restrictions. I have tried everything in my power to do everything right by the restrictions. I do regret the situation on Irish politics that caused me to be put under a ban and I feel that with the restrictions lifted, I would be able to be a more productive community member.

I am aware that people may be upset with me for the past actions, but I would like a chance to put it right and show I can make DYKs in the affected areas without causing disruption. If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed. If this needs to be put in a specific template, could someone help me with that please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", "do everything right by the restrictions", "regret the situation". Why not "were combative", "was POV pushing", "do everything right" and "regret my actions"? I'm trying to get an overview, but is this even an admission of fault at all? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am apologising for what happened @ToBeFree: and I am saying I abided by the restrictions that were placed upon me and I am requesting a chance under SO to put things right. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

When I make a mistake, I usually apologize for what I did, not for what "has happened". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(and thank you for not evading the ban, but that's meeting the minimal expectation, not an achievement) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is what I am doing. I am apologising for it, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your "attitude and style" weren't what led to these sanctions. You were topic banned because your DYK hooks were objectively, deliberately inflammatory and POV-pushing. You did this for years, so why should we trust that after just six months it will be different? There's no shortage of other editors working on DYKs and no shortage of other topics for you to write about, so what benefit to the project is there in allowing you to return to the problem areas? – Joe (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't want to bring up the stats but the original discussion highlighted only 14 cherry picked examples out of 518 that were considered to be under that description. I do understand now how that can be viewed but I do think there has to be consistency given 1831 Londonderry City by-election ran on Ulster Day and there was no comment. The benefit for allowing me to return is that much of my Christian DYK work is on hymns and churches and as for British politics, mostly tend to be on legislation passed. It's why I have volunteered to retain the restrictions on island of Ireland, Islam and LGBT topics to avoid those risks that could be seen as inflammatory. What can I do to convince you @Joe Roe:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • only 14 – how many times do you think the average editor has smuggled racist and homophobic slurs onto the main page? You've previously used DYKs on hymns to proselytise and insult the Prophet Muhammad, and obscure political articles for carefully-timed sectarian baiting.[21][22][23][24] If your record shows anything, it's that you're extraordinarily creative in finding a way to make even the most banal subjects as offensive as possible, so in your case absolutely anything "could be seen as inflammatory". – Joe (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per original problems and terrible attempts at downplaying them and making the C of E the victim here. The "14 out of 518" examples were only cherry-picked in the sense that they were just some cherries on top of a large cake of similar problems. For example, the discussion that lead to the ban had two examples of "Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice", Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today from 2018 and Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen! from 2019. But in the list of 518, we can e.g. also find the exact same problem with Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christ is Risen Today, which was extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 103#DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact: and again in 2015, when CofE presented yet again such a non-hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Again! (this time not accepted), and in 2016 Template:Did you know nominations/God Is Working His Purpose Out (hook not accepted). Oh, and in 2017, as Alt1, Template:Did you know nominations/Long Ago, Prophets Knew (hook not used). Perhaps the restrictions should be expanded to cover religion as well instead, considering that you have tried the same thing so many times over so long a period. Fram (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Religion is already covered - the first restriction is A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. It appears C of E is proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow him to propose DYKs relating to Christianity.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Right, thanks. Struck that part, just a regular oppose then. Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • When looking at DYKs done since the restrictions were put into place, I cam across Template:Did you know nominations/The Twelve Days of Christmas (Correspondence). Perhaps it is unfair to blame the problems solely on the CofE, the reviewers and so on should have spotted the issues, but still: this hook is presenting a work of fiction as factual, which goes against the DYK rules ("If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way."): and that hook is sourced (in the nomination and in the article) to [25], which seems awfully like a pure copyright violating site ([26]). For someone who has been here so long and created that many DYKs, that's quite worrying. Fram (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse modification to the first line of restrictions as proposed, per WP:ROPE. This will allow him to write about British politics, but still be restricted from the other topics. I find the above discussion distasteful. We told him to come back in six months. He does so, says he understands what the problem was and regrets his previous behavior. In return, people are beating him up because his grovel isn't sufficiently self-deprecating. One of two things will happen if we accept the proposed modification. He might go on to be a productive DYK contributor. Or he might mess up again. If the later, we'll know soon enough and deal with it, probably with an extension of the ban which excludes WP:SO. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • He doesn't really seem to understand the problem though, claiming that the DYKs were cherry-picked and "could be perceived" as all kinds of problems, as if they weren't intended as such all along. This wasn't some occasional lapse, but a years-long campaign to attack certain groups, to shock, and to proselytize, all on the main page. He doesn't understand what the problem was (well, he probably does, but it doesn't show in this discussion), the appeal makes it look as if the problem was what other editors incorrectly saw in his DYKs (no, in very few, cherry-picked, DYKs from an otherwise flawless record). Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • But I do understand, I honestly don't know how I can say that I get what it was and I am willing to change and that I have changed by being more collaborative. I'm willing to do less "shocking" hooks. I'm honestly asking what can I do to prove I have changed but I feel like I am just getting kicked when I am down when I have done what I have been asked to. @Fram:, please tell me what I can do? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Primefac's close said the sanctions can be appealed after six months, that's not the same thing as "come back in six months", as WP:SO makes clear. And note that CofE waited barely four months to (unsuccessfully) try to get his related AE topic ban lifted. There and here, he has not shown that he understands what the problem was at all. He describes his appalling record at DYK as a situation, as allegedly trying [to schedule a DYK] which was not desirable to consensus, an attitude and style that [...] could be seen to be combative, an unfortunate coincidence, and now cherry picked examples. He has self-declared extreme views on British politics and this was a central issue in his abuse of the main page. Why on earth would we open the door for him to do it again? Monitoring his nominations and potentially having to drag him back here will be yet another time-sink on top of the colossal amount of volunteer time already wasted on this, and for what... so we can have a few more hooks in the DYK queue? – Joe (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Joe Roe: You are making it sound like no matter what I say or do, I'll never get a chance to prove myself that I have changed. It may just be me, but that seems fundamentally unfair. I only did the arbcom one because I was told there was no limit to wait, opposed to this which I fully respected. I have already explained I am not good at wording things, which is partially due to a disability on my part. I didn't want to have to reveal that but no one seems to be willing to understand that I have taken that time to reflect and promised to change my approach to it if I am permitted to return to these areas. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page, and this is their allocution that they learned their lesson? Their apology shows no awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. It has nothing to do with groveling, as the person above notes, and everything to do with showing no awareness about the problems they caused. We don't need deference, we need awareness and assurances that they understand that what they did was wrong. I see zero evidence of that. --Jayron32 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not very good at wording these sort of things. But I am aware of what happened and how it is viewed as. I understand that what I was doing seemed as POV pushing and I have apologised for it and am willing to prove I have changed. @Jayron32: Please give me the opportunity because I honestly do not get what I can do prove that I have understood and willing to say I will refrain from it. I even made the proposed alteration so admins can still keep the leash on controversial issues that caused the problem. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @The C of E: Did it seem to be POV pushing, or was it POV pushing? If it's not clear, that's the distinction that makes your appeals unconvincing to many. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. The appeal request is tone-deaf and not at all contrite in relation to the behaviors that got them topic-banned in the first place.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How many times can I say I recognise what I did was wrong and apologise for it? I've done everything asked of me and had it all thrown back in my face here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that this a very unhelpful addition. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. C of E it may help those such as myself who are still making up our minds if you answered Joe's question above as to whether you think what you did was POV pushing or just seemed like it. P-K3 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: The only reason I haven't out and out said that was because I was afraid of it being an entrapment. I was afraid that if I said it directly, people would just say "he admits it, so we will keep this on permanently". If I do say it, will that help and not be seen as I feared it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support modification per Roy and WP:ROPE. They have done what we have asked, that's a good sign. Like the opposition, I'm not convinced a full removal is a good idea, but how else are we supposed to gauge that if we don't give them a chance to show us? If we deny this request and it's appealed in another 6 months, how will we know if the removal is or is not justified? I think narrowing the scope of the TBAN as proposed will put us in a better place to evaluate the whole thing in the future. If they've learned, we'll have evidence that they can contribute in a related area without disruption. If they haven't, the disruption will still be limited, but we'll have direct evidence to justify a longer ban. At the very least, I hope we can give a bit more consideration than picking on a couple words in the first sentence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think it makes much sense to reduce the scope from "religion" to "Islam", considering that only one of their many offending religion-related DYKs had to do with that faith in particular (one which I felt was blown out of proportion anyway). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal and oppose modifications, per Joe and Jayron. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32 who nails it above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. Edit summaries like "I'm handcuffed" and "my hands are tied" show that the C of E thinks of himself as a victim and a glaring lack of awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. The comments above are simply a continuation of this litany of self-pity. Nothing has changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think you are misreading the intent with that message. That message was saying "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", not me just moaning and grumbling. I am aware of what happened and again, I have apologised and will change my ways @Bloom6132:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not at all. If you were truly intending to say "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", why didn't you simply say it in that way? Your edit summary says a lot about your intent. Instead of saying something to the effect of "sorry would like to help but can't", you repeat your "moaning and grumbling", as if these sanctions were unjustified and unfair. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• But it was that way. I don't understand how people are misconstruing the intent. I don't know what people want me to say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• You didn't say it would "break the restrictions". Your use of the terms "handcuffed" and "hands are tied" do come across as painting yourself as a victim. The terminology you employ here is no different. The only regret I'm sensing here is regret that you're now being called out for your behaviour (after years of being given a free pass), rather than regret for the behaviour itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have an idea.Bear with me, this doesn't happen often. The CofE says "If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed." Well clearly there isn't any consensus that dropping the full restrictions is desired, but equally there isn't therefore a way of him showing that he has learned from the topic ban. So my idea is this.
  • 1. The topic ban is modified to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics". (Note that they are already fully T-banned from The Troubles and British & Irish nationalism, so that isn't an issue anyway)
  • 2. However, before the C of E works on a proposed DYK in the areas that have been loosened (i.e. non-Ireland politics and non-Islam religion) they need to gain permission for this.
  • 3. To gain permission, they need to approach one of a group of admins or other trusted editors who are familiar with the case, and say "I wish to work on Article X for DYK, and I propose This hook sentence as a hook.
  • 4. If this is declined, they cannot submit that article for DYK.
  • 5. If it is accepted, they must (a) have the article checked by a "moderator", and/or (b) inform one of the "moderators" if there is to be any change to the hook, before it is submitted for DYK, and gain permission.
  • 6. Any gaming of this relaxation of the topic ban will be sanctionable.
  • 7. I am happy to be one of the "moderators".
• Before you say "Oh, you old bleeding heart liberal snowflake BK", I was one of the most vociferous critics of The C of E over the actions that led to the topic ban, and I nearly blocked them for it at the time, let alone TBanning. [27]. But - a little WP:ROPE seems to me to be no-lose; either we get improved and/or new articles, or we end up back here. And it's purely up to The C of E which path is taken. Black Kite (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think that if it's necessary to have a mechanism which is this complex in order to loosen their restrictions, then it's best not to loosen their restrictions at all. Who has the time and energy (and interest) to be a full-time watcher to make sure that all of these steps are properly taken each and every time CofE wants to file a DYK? It's not as if not having their DYK is going to harm the encyclopedia in some way: DYKs are, at best, ancillary to the primary purpose of the project. It could easily survive and prosper without them, and certainly without CofE's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I say, I don't mind doing it. DYK isn't the point really, though - to get that article to DYK you have to either (a) create it, (b) expand it 5x, or (c) get it to GA. These are all good things. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given Bike Kite's willingness to be involved in this process, I support their solution with an understanding that even slight problems could result in all of this coming back (or worse). This editor has done a fair bit of good stuff and I'd prefer to see them resume the good while losing the bad. I think it's less than 50/50 that's what will happen, but I think WP:ROPE is appropriate. Basically I trust Black Kite on stuff like this... Hobit (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. While Black Kite's proposal is not unreasonable, if the only option is to replace a pretty severe, nuanced restriction, with a somewhat less severe, nuanced restriction, it's more likely that the original restriction was valid to begin with, and the user needs to show that it is no longer needed, rather than that we should bend over backwards to accomodate the user's return to the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• My idea is that if they can demonstrate over a period of time that they can work within the less severe restriction, we might not need the DYK TBan at all (the main TBan will still cover the major flashpoints anyway). Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree to that proposal @Black Kite:. It's similar to what I had been doing when I asked @Primefac: for permission when I felt I might be straying too close to a topic covered by this. I hope it can prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, cautiously, Black Kite's proposal. This is actually a fairly narrow loosening of the restrictions and it should hopefully prevent any gaming. C of E is amenable to it, let's see if they can abide by it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. It wasn't just 14 cherry-picked examples out of hundreds, those were just some examples that were highlighted in the discussion that led to the topic ban. We have plenty of people working on DYK, and we simply don't need help from someone who abused it for years to push their own personal religious and sectarian bigotry. And as for accepting and addressing the problems, "could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing" doesn't come close - there's no "could be" or "appeared to be" about it, it was blatant and deliberate bigotry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to Vanamonde93 who was the originator of the tban proposal. —valereee (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the proposal reads more like PR-speak than genuine recognition of the problem. I would support BK's proposal, but only if we have a group of admins/editors explicitly willing to sign off on CofE's DYK hooks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose relaxed restrictions. A lot of the past problems involved boundary-pushing. And just today on WT:DYK, The C of E has been helpfully instructing others on how to push boundaries and get away with it. So why should we now acquiesce to pushing the demarked boundary just a little, and to allowing some of the topics that were problematic in the past to return? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I resent that accusation about yesterday, I think you misunderstood the intent behind it it. We had an editor who had a genuine question about how to nominate a DYK without naming the main contributor their request. There is nothing in the rules that says the main contributor has to be named so I gave, what I thought to be the correct answer around that. No boundry pushing here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - While others here have stated that rope can be given to The C of E, I feel that it would be a very bad idea given his previous behavior and gaming attempts (and given his comments here, I do not feel that he has reasonably allayed concerns). I would have been more open to BK's proposals had they been simplified to a more simple proposal (i.e. any "loosened topic" hook that The C of E proposes must have a co-nominator, rather than go through all the hoops of asking for permission in every step) and be paired with a strong implementation of restriction #3 (that any of his hooks can be vetoed without appeal), but I'm frankly not that confident in DYK's self-policing ability given previous incidents. As for the editing restrictions, if anything, I'm actually inclined to support it being broadened to politics in general given that he has, on at least one occasion since the topic ban was implemented, proposed a hook about a non-UK/Ireland country that at first glance seems somewhat questionable. For instance, see Template:Did you know nominations/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe government buildings where the hook calls Robert Mugabe a "drunk Superman"; although the quote is in the article and is cited, given that Zimbabwe is a former British colony and The C of E previously had a userbox in his userpage indicating that he supported "the restoration of the British Empire", the nomination gave me at least some pause. At the very least, it felt to me like another case of gaming and "trying to push his [British imperalist] beliefs" on the main page, though of course other editors may see it differently. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • • • No, I was not calling Mugabe a "drunk superman". It said in the article that there reports that people were calling the statue of Mugabe that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I had already revised the comment to "the hook says" before your comment was posted and I apologize for any misunderstandings raised. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support on a one-strike-and-you're-out probationary period. I don't really understand telling someone to come back in six months only to tell them to go away again. People can and do change. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Question C of E, you're "proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow you to propose DYKs relating to Christianity"? Is that correct? Not so may Islamic hymns, are there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) They're called Muslymns. – PeeJay 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support some form of lifting the t-ban, per WP:ROPE. I would prefer a more straightforward solution suggested by The Rambling Man: just lifting the t-ban for some probationary period (say 3 months), and then revisiting the matter for lifting it unconditionally at the end of the probationary period. As the second choice, modifying the t-ban to limit it to "proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", as suggested by C of E. BK's proposal would be my third choice. Seems way too complicated but it's better than the status quo. Simply rejecting C of E's request out of hand seems too vengeful. They did as asked, and a bit of WP:ROPE is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Although it's quite possible that I've used it myself, I've never quite understood the ROPE argument. Someone is disruptive, so the community gets together and stops the disruption with a sanction. The editor asks for the sanction to be lifted, and we're just honky-dory with the probability of their being disruptive again -- as they have been in the past, so there's no "assumption" of bad faith, there's a record of bad behavior -- instead of keeping the status quo, which is working just fine. The vast majority of editors who use the ROPE argument will never have to deal with the disruption that may come about, so they're basically saying "I don't mind making more work or difficulty in editing for someone else". Sanctions are not punitive, they're preventative, but an editor who has edited disruptively in the past is obviously more likely to need more prevention sometime in the future. If editors are convinced by the sanctioned editor's appeal that they've changed, that's a different matter, but hand-waving and citing ROPE is actually uncollegial and unfair to the rest of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE is based on the assumption that people can and do change and that a measure of forgiveness is a good thing when exercised with prudence. All of our sactions including bans and blocks, are appealable and none are forever. In this particular case it appears that the editor continued to edit constructively in other areas while serving out their t-ban. They also expressed a reasonable degree of contrition for the problems that led to the t-ban and promised to do better. Under these circumstances, yes, I think extending them some WP:ROPE is reasonable, despite a record of past disruption. Note that all three options that I am suggesting above involve putting somev additional safeguards in place rather than lifting the t-ban unconditionally now. Nsk92 (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove one way IBAN

I had an IBAN imposed in October of 2019 and I am requesting the removal of it. The details are at: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. I admit that the IBAN was imposed correctly and to avoid disruption and I was 100% at fault in that case. However, I am asking that the IBAN be removed at this time. I don't believe I had any recent interaction, even tangentially but it is hard at times to keep to the IBAN due to the nature of the details. I am not sure about notifications or comments, but I would request that any discussion I have here be sanctioned by BANEX. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The text of SJ's IBAN reads: "Sir Joseph is banned interacting with User:TonyBallioni. This is a one-way interaction ban.". It was imposed on 8 October 2019 after this ANI discussion. I'd be interested to hear what @Tony Ballioni: thinks about this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixing ping @TonyBallioni:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer report: [28]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Decline, user does not elaborate on the interaction ban or explain why it is no longer necessary. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I am inclined to keep an interaction ban that has been successful, not only in keeping Sir Joseph away from TonyBallioni but in keeping Sir Joseph on-Wiki (see the ban discussion: Sir Joseph's very survival on Wikipedia counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin). Perhaps Sir Joseph could enlarge on how the ban is preventing him from editing Wikipedia and how he would interact with TonyBallioni if it were lifted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, as you see in the interaction analyzer, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't. I also feel that there is no more need of an IBAN and we shouldn't keep it just to keep it. It's been well over a year and we shouldn't be punitive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  OK, you want to be able to comment in discussions where TonyBallioni has commented. I would support lifting the IB for that with the advice that I think you would wise to continue to avoid commenting on, about or in response to TonyBallioni; just comment directly on the topic being discussed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Please see Tony's list below of discussion in which TB commented first, and SJ commented later, so he's already doing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal - SJ is aware of the issue and knows to avoid interaction with TB. He has demonstrated that it's possible for him to do so as a mature adult. It's easy enough to restore it, so what's the big deal? Realistically after 6 mos, t-bans and i-bans become punishment to those who have to carry the full responsibility of that ball and chain. They should never be forever anymore than PP should be forever on an article. Atsme 💬 📧 14:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support reduction per WP:ROPE. Would it be possible to reduce the IBAN to merely avoid direct interaction (i.e. addressing directly or responding directly to comments) rather than merely avoiding pages/sections where the other is active? If not, I would also support a full elimination of the IBAN (pending TB's comments regarding the issue) as a second best option. --Jayron32 15:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

*Support reduction I think Jayron makes a good argument and we should allow SJ a rope and if there will be a slight problem the ban could reinstated again. --Shrike (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I reread the arguments one again and I now Support removal but I urge SJ to minimize his interaction to TB to absolute minimum --Shrike (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal. Both his admission and the time that has passed with no further events suggest that SJ has learned from the experience, and could interact productively with TB. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal per above. 17 months is long enough, really for just about any sanction of any editor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal per WP:ROPE. starship.paint (exalt) 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal per ROPE and 17 months elapsed.--Hippeus (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal This IBAN served its purpose and can be at least provisionally removed due to good behavior. Tikisim (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• commenting before archive.. Can an uninvolved admin please look at this? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, I guess this has started while I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit. I oppose removal and ask that this be kept open a bit after my response of Sir Joseph's IBAN with me. There is literally no reason to remove it. What does it accomplish? Sir Joseph and I do not edit the same topic areas. I actually can't think of a time where I have come into contact with him recently just through going through the normal pages that I go through. My experience with Sir Joseph is that he harbors grudges and would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Wikipedia.
  I'm also going to point out that my concerns here have some merit as it was made while I was on a wikibreak for a few weeks. Sorry if I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect Sir Joseph looking through my contributions for no reason, noticed I wasn't around, and then decided to ask for this because he knows that the community is usually unwilling to remove a 1-way IBAN if the other party is opposed. If he's already looking through my contribution history while under an IBAN, forgive me if I assume that he's going to do the same when he's not. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You're expressing a lot of ABF in that response and I hope you rewrite it. More helpful than sharing your assumptions would be sharing if you've had any problems with SJ in the last 17 months or not. Because if the answer is "not", it may be you who is holding a grudge here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. I don’t comment on or interact with Sir Joseph because of the IBAN: its not fair to him. I’m not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed. That’s not an assumption of bad faith or holding a grudge, that’s having an extremely negative experience with someone and not wanting to be subject to it again.
      The community traditionally does not lift one-way IBANs if one party objects. I’m simply asking that the community give me the courtesy of considering my request that SJ keep from interacting with me. There’s literally no reason for him to do so since we don’t edit the same areas and he’s at no risk of violating his ban on accident. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
      • "I'm not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed" is the very definition of holding a grudge. I'm not suggesting you need to assume good faith, I'm suggesting you should not assume bad faith, like don't assume he went through your contribs, and let go of your grudge. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I think that’s an odd definition. I don’t wish Sir Joseph any ill will. I’m not asking he be banned from the site. I’m asking that he continue not to talk about me. By your definition you’re suggesting, anyone who has experienced someone behaving overwhelmingly negatively towards them should have their concerns dismissed as a grudge or as assuming bad faith. That’s not particularly fair—it means that people who have legitimate concerns with the way others have treated them simply to have those concerns ignored. The community already decided that Sir Joseph was acting inappropriately towards me. I don’t have to demonstrate that. My concern that Sir Joseph will continue acting that way is a real one, and I think I’m within behavioural norms to express it. I also don’t think I need to defend every word choice I made from in-depth analysis and reframing of arguments when expressing that, so I’m not going to continue engaging in this thread since you appear to have made up your mind, and I am also fairly resolved that I continue to not want to have to worry about Sir Joseph interacting with me. I’ve made my request known. The community can decide, and I’ll accept the result. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
          • TonyBallioni, Why not support at least reduction as per Jayron and see how it going per WP:ROPE and WP:AGF Shrike (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I guess I just believe that editors should be given a way out, and not be trapped in an IBAN (or any sanction) forever. 17 months is a long time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
            • I do not support the concept of lifting sanctions just because "it's been a long time." The IBAN appears to be working, so why would we lift it? Just for the hell of it? I do not see how it is limiting SJ from doing anything except interacting with Tony, and that's a good thing that we should want to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Updated_Request_for_Termination_of_IBAN (this was a prior IBAN on this page that made me think of filing this request. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Wikipedia. - I guess a verbal commitment to not do these would be a positive step. starship.paint (exalt) 16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't, and don't, check the contributions of those I am banned from interacting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

...with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal s the other party opposes the lifting of the ban, and also WP:IBAN says 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, so I don't see how Sir Joseph's stated reason for lifting the ban, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't is valid as he can still comment on a discussion, just not directly to TB.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It prevents him from commenting on discussions started by TB, and it might be understood by some admins as preventing him from commenting on points previously addressed by TB. François Robere (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. It prevents him from commenting on me (directly or indirectly) or replying to me. WP:IBAN does not say that he can't comment on RfCs or the like started by me. Shrike (replying to you here), my view is that WP:ROPE is a really bad essay for IBANs: it'd force me to gather diffs and write out a long explanation of why SJ's behavior towards me is continuing a long trend of thinking everything I do is wrong and going out of his way to comment on me in other forums. I didn't request the original IBAN myself because I thought it'd look bad for an admin to request one from someone who has criticized them, and I'd be pretty unlikely to request it again for the same reasons. That being said, it was very much a relief when someone else proposed it, and I'd rather not have to go back to worrying about him showing up out of the woodwork to say negative things about me.
      To Jayron32's point, my understanding of WP:IBAN is already in line with what he is calling a "reduction". SJ is not prevented from commenting in or on discussions I have already commented in. He has done so on multiple occasions since his IBAN: he opposed the RfC I recently started on community based desysop. He has supported an RfA where I was one of the main opposers. He commented in the anti-harassment RfC last year, where I also participated before him. He opposed and RfA where I was the nominator. He made this comment at AN after I had blocked the person who started the thread and commented in the thread. He made this comment on a thread about the SashiRolls ban that I had proposed after it was enacted. He made this comment in a block review thread I had already commented in.
      I would be fine with a clarification to Sir Joseph that he is free to take part in discussions that I take part in or start so long as he does not directly or indirectly reference me or reply to me, but he already seems to be aware of this as he's been doing it pretty regularly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Under what conditions would you support this IBAN being lifted? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - I hadn't !voted until now because I was waiting to hear from TonyBallioni. Not knowing that TB was on a Wikibreak, I interpreted his apparent silence as his being OK with removing the IBAN, and since the !voting was going in that direction, I didn't see any purpose in !voting myself. But now that I know that Tony is opposed to removing the ban, I also oppose it, as I would for almost any one-way IBAN in which the victimized editor objects to its being lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal - 17 months with no issues seems long enough for another go. Not a fan of indefinite sanctions with no clear reason why they need to continue. Also not a fan of 1 way ibans either, but that is more a in general thing and not specific to this instance. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems with edit requests system

Dormskirk has raised the following concern about the edit requests backlog and general operation of the system, which I said was worth raising here: "the whole edit request system seems to be broken. There is a backlog of some 224 edit requests going back over four months which, in my recollection, is as bad as it has ever been. Meanwhile paid editors are not complying with the edit request system: you just have to look at Ferrexpo, Kingspan and Ocado to see that that conflicted editors are now inserting text directly into articles with impunity. In the real world there would be leadership from seniors to fix a broken system but because wikipedia is a community such issues never get addressed.

My own observation from someone who occasionally recommends that people make edit requests is that the backlog was pretty much eliminated for a time thanks to the efforts of one editor, Spintendo, but that since they're no longer so active, things have spiralled out of hand again. Obviously the success of a whole system such as this shouldn't rest on one editor. Do others have any thoughts on how to make progress on this issue (not just the backlog, but perhaps broader reform)? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the first step is for administrators and editors who are forcing paid editors into the COI request queue or AFC queue to acknowledge that there is no actual requirement for conflicted editors to use those queues if they are otherwise submitting edits that are defensible from an encyclopedic perspective. The over-strict interpretation and application of the COI guideline can be seen in effect at WP:COI/N with the indefinite blocking and naked reverting of disclosed paid editors. Pinging Justlettersandnumbers and Possibly for comment. –xeno^talk 12:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, as in many things, deciding and writing "encyclopedically defensible" can be easier said than done, primarily around the issues of NON-COI editor researching broad and narrow context for NPOV, eg., unmentioned spin and due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno: thanks for the ping. I don't see a connection between asking people to use talk page edit requests if they have COI and the edit request backlog. The backlog has 228 current requests. I have only interacted with one of the editors making a request, who has made edit requests for five different articles on the list. So it's 5/228, at least for my part.--- Possibly (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No concern with asking; as long as it remains an ask. Editors who acknowledge the guidance and choose to edit directly are permitted to do so and their edits should be engaged on an editorial basis, the same as any other editor submitting changes for collaborative review. All editors bring bias to editing and all edits are subject to scrutiny, yet still most editors (including paid) are permitted to submit changes directly. With disclosure, paid editors are making it easier to scrutinize their potentially compromised edits and should not be treated any more harshly than other editors with undisclosed biases (i.e. every single one of us). None of this precludes asking paid editors to comply with policy such as "not promotional" so they can adapt their editing to be within project scope. Forcing disclosed paid editors into a backlogged and currently understaffed process merely kicks that can down the road (potentially to another contributor, if the asking users don’t also respond to requests to that queue) and encourages undisclosed paid editing, further increasing administrative overhead and backlogs (is the paid-en-wp queue still hopelessly backlogged?). –xeno^talk 14:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying as a theory, but do not see it as being an actual issue in practice, at least from what I have seen at COIN.--- Possibly (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• DGG: you’ve done a lot of good work on that queue and integrating these types of edits- how can we attract editors and admins to staffing that queue? Are you able to improve WP:COIRESPONSE with additional best practices or useful approaches for editors willing to help with the backlog? –xeno^talk 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Some of our processes are broken by design. I see no reason why paid editors should expect a quick response to their edit requests from volunteers, who have better things to do. As for them making edits directly, as xeno says we can't force anyone to follow the guidelines in WP:COI, which only "strongly discourages" such edits. We could eliminate this backlog and make life much, much easier for those trying to clean up commissioned spam if we just forbade paid editing, but that seems unlikely to get broad consensus. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that much different from almost every policy or guideline: we can't force almost anyone to do anything, whether it is complying with V, NPOV, OR, or being CIVIL, following DR, etc, and to the extent any account can get blocked, it will almost never occur unless there is brightline, or extensively obvious fault (and then sotto voce, there is the next account). We are, by design ('anyone can edit'), left almost exclusively with asking, instructing, pleading, hoping, lecturing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who's been responding to enough edit requests lately that the (kind, helpful, and a net positive) paid editor on the talk page of the article I've been helping with has taken to pinging me directly when she has a new one, I'm inclined to sympathize with this but not entirely agree with it. Volunteers quite certainly have better things to do than respond to COI requests, but if we have too many better things to do, they'll just give up and black-hat it -- doesn't exactly decrease our workload or make the project look good. The best paid editors are genuinely positive contributors to the project whose dedication to their topics is unusually high (they are, after all, unusually motivated). There's good reason to wade through the trash. (Of course, even with the good ones, you need to really be sure you're not unbalancing the article in a promotional direction.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• A similar thread was recently opened at the village pump, and it resulted in the creation of a new wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Edit requests. It seems there are a few users interested in improving the edit request system and some procedural improvements are already going on. --MarioGom (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• In the particular corner of Wikipedia that I haunt - articles about U.S. colleges and universities - I have begun adding additional advice to COI editors to the effect of "if no one responds to your request in a timely manner, feel free to post a brief message at the Talk page for the higher education project." I think that works reasonably well as it provides those editors with an outlet that connects them with a (very small) group of editors who have a specific interest in those articles and thus are more likely to respond to a request for help. Perhaps other editors who respond to COI editors with advice can do something similar and try to provide those COI editors with one or two projects or other venues (e.g., some noticeboards might be appropriate for some requests such as WP:BLPN for an article about a living person) to try if they don't get a timely response to their request...? ElKevbo (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I now have chosen an edit request (one of the older ones) and spent 30 minutes researching sources to figure out whether the suggested edit conforms to our policies. If every request requires 30 minutes of an experiences editor time, the system is not viable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing this, Ymblanter. I haven't dealt with many edit requests, and whenever I did, it was a very time-consuming process. The problem, however, might be paid editing itself. People are paid to make edits that do not striclty adhere to our policies, whether intentional or unintentional doesn't affect the result. The result is a need for volunteer time spent solely on fixing their mistakes. This can happen in articles, this can happen in the request queue, this can happen at AfC. Skipping or enforcing the review process just moves the time problem between places. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  (and regarding non-financial COIs: As we all know, enthusiasm can be exactly like payment; it can even outperform payment in terms of motivation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's why I typically restrict my editing in that area to my specific area of expertise where it's usually relatively quick for me to evaluate a request and respond to it. I'm also not shy about asking follow up questions both to (a) verify the request and the underlying source(s) and (b) ensure the request is specific and straight forward to implement. That's also why I made the suggestion above to also point COI editors to relevant projects and noticeboards where editors who have already expressed a specific interest in that topic may be willing to help. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to go through some of Spintendo's history to see how they handled edit requests given they previously handled quite a bit. I looked at a couple when this issue was raised at Village Pump, and from those it appears if the request did not follow the "change x to y" type format, Spintendo pushed back. Although, this was admittedly a teeny sampling. S0091 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Many edit requests will take only a few minutes, if they're no more than updating financial figures or the name of an executive, and a good source is properly given. But these are the sort of requests that coi editors should be able to make on their own. However, anything more substantial takes much longer. When it involves a addition of substantial new material, or a change in corporate structure, or a general proposed removal of what the coi editor thinks is bias, it can take not just 15 minutes, but many hours, and require extensive back and forth and considerable checking of the actual sources. This will be true of the best of systems here, but it is particularly true of ours, where multiple individual edits are suggested, and each one is negotiated. . I have done this a few times, sometimes with good results, but I have decided that I simply will not do this any longer, nor would I ask anyone else to work this way.

What I suggest we need to do is to tell the coi user to make a proposed replacement of the necessary part or entirety of the text, and we will either accept it, modify it if its simple enough to make the modifications, or reject it, and that will be the end of it. We cannot take the time to teach each individual coi editor what proper editing is. I will gladly teach at considerable length any good faith volunteer editor who shows a willingness to learn, if they work in a field I can understand.

But when a coi editor asks the same of me, they are asking me to do my unpaid volunteer work to make improvements for which they will be paid. I have nothing against paid editing in other contexts: I've done some myself, before joining the encyclopedia. But I will not assist it here. If good coi editing happens anyway, and is properly declared, I won't try to remove it, but that coincidence is extremely rare. A very few people have been able to do good volunteer work along with some adequate paid editing on the side, but none I'm aware of has been able to do equally good paid editing as they do for their own private interests. We all know why: proper NPOV editing will generally not be accepted by their employers. No editor can make an honest living out of it; those who continue mostly do it as a supplementary service to their PR clients.

As remarked above, this can apply to unpaid coi also. Not always--someone who has learned to edit properly in volunteer work can occasionally make a brief factual article on a subject with some degree of coi, as I did for my now-deceased thesis advisor, when the relevant wikiproject asked that someone do it. But normally the most persistent arguments about content have come from those with a direct personal non financial involvement--often a relative of the individual.

The answer to requests for an article I learned here long ago remains the best "When you are notable enough for an article, someone else will write one". This can be extended to requests for substantial changes: "If you are noteworthy enough for the changes to be important, someone uninvolved will notice." That might be a little unfair--there are a great many articles and insufficient good editors. Perhaps we should suggest that the person involved call attention to the need for improvement on the relevant project talk page, with at most a bare minimum of details or a key reference, and if the subject is of interest, someone will follow up--follow up in the usual way a volunteer fixes an article. Despite what I said earlier, I will sometimes want to do that in areas of truly special interest to me, or when I wanted to learn about the subject, articles which I would have wanted to improve had I come across them by myself, or happened upon a source which I thought should be in Wikipedia , which is and will remain the usual way I notice the need for improvements. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What I suggest we need to do is to tell the coi user to make a proposed replacement of the necessary part or entirety of the text, and we will either accept it, modify it if its simple enough to make the modifications, or reject it, and that will be the end of it. We cannot take the time to teach each individual coi editor what proper editing is. I think this is beyond reasonable, and would propose that this be added to the COI and Edit Request instructions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Sandstein 10:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think DGG highlights an important issue when he says If you are noteworthy enough for the changes to be important, someone uninvolved will notice. I've responded to edit requests, but I mostly work on the black hat side of things; working on sockfarms like Yoodaba, VentureKit, Jaktheladz has led me to look at the histories of hundreds of company pages. What's striking about many of them is that they're often relatively high-traffic click-wise, but attract very few legitimate editors; in a large number of cases, the overwhelming majority of people who edit the pages are Wikipedians on AWB sprees, bots, confirmed accounts of large sockfarms, SPA throwaways that edit the company article once and then disappear and suspicious IPs that never edit anything else and often geolocate suspiciously close to company headquarters. In many cases, I'd put money on the fact that 80+% of the edits involve some sort of COI. Many of the edits are harmless in the sense that they're not overtly promotional – though many are – but in sum, this leads to many of those pages being of very little encyclopaedic value.

The reason that so many of our low-ish profile company pages read like the "milestones" bullet-points on company websites is because that's precisely what they're based on: Someone from marketing writes an article that re-hashes their "about us" PR material and over subsequent years, the interns get called in to "update" the "company's Wikipedia profile". When someone finally notices and slaps the page with an incriminating maintenance tag, the more competent marketing socks get hired to clean the articles up a little.

On the flip side, UPE on high-profile pages that attract many legitimate editors often turns out to be less problematic because the changes get reverted, toned down, or overwritten fairly quickly. I think it's an important consideration to make that the fact that a company meets NCORP doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually going to attract legitimate editors – though granted, many of the pages I'm talking about were written when AfC wasn't yet a thing and standards for inclusion were generally lower.

I believe that this ties in with the reason we have so many edit requests in the first place: Sure, part of it is that the work can be tedious, but another important aspect is that there are very few editors actually interested in writing about companies on their own (or at least doing so regularly), and hence many company pages are indeed outdated and unattended – as a result, we get people who take matters into their own hands and just edit without disclosure, and a ballooning edit request backlog that's not a very attractive thing for most editors to be working on. Blablubbs|talk 14:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled on a small (50 employee) company the other day because someone had added it as an important industry in a US county article. I cleaned it up some, but available sources, beyond the company website and press releases, are rather thin. The few other articles about corporations that are on my watch list are also poorly sourced and written, but are not high on my list of things to work on. There is one where I recently had to clean out some attacks on the company's owner. I can only guess how many such articles are not being watched by active editors. - Donald Albury 16:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

My experience has been similar to Ymblanter's. I tried doing this and found it took an extraordinary amount of time to clear up the oldest requests even if they were simple 1 sentence level requests. xeno's solution of just saying "they can ignore us" is unsatisifying because if it's hard to deal with something as an edit request, it's going to be even harder to deal with it when it's been in an article and subject to Circular referencing. DGG's solution feels the best of the bunch, though I wonder what the community's reaction would be to rejecting something simply because it was too burdensome to check. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with what Blablubbs and Wugapodes (who was quoting DGG) have said. I think we need to refine/reform the process to facilitate the speedy implementation of COI/paid edits, because the longer the backlog gets, the more COI editors will just implement the changes themselves.

Yes, it is frustrating, but I don't believe that banning paid editing is the solution. If paid editors's sole purpose is to get their company a page on Wikipedia (or edit said page) what's stopping them from doing so even if paid editing is banned? Most of them don't care about staying as an editor, and I can't think of another incentive for them to refrain from PE. Or worse, they hire a paid editing company (many if not most of whom are UPEs) to do the dirty work for them. At least with (declared) PE being allowed we have some sort of grip idea on what is actually happening on that front. Banning it would likely just move the whole thing underground, with little reduction to the volume of it occurring. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Dealing properly with low-attention articles has been a problem since I joined in 2006, but for some routine updates, I think there is a technical solution. I've proposed it before, as have others, and some parts have been implemented: a greater use of automatic updates, using wikidata as an intermediate. We should be able to automatically update financials and ceos of public companies and charities, and possible much other numerical data. Updating smaller businesses will be a real problem--there are some very expensive commercial service, but most of this is not public information in any form we can use. (which also means, that even if they ask, it can be difficult for them to document with a RS). We can do similarly with colleges, and governmental bodies. We could obviously do it in sports and music, but there are enough volunteers lookingfor something to do here. I admit I'm not sure how much of this is already being done. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• As far as administrators go on the edit-requests, there are currently only 9 requests that require admins, and that is including template-editor edits. Administrators do a very good job managing the backlog that requires admins on ER's. As far as the unprotected ER system - the immediate need is for editors to work it, but it is far from the largest backlog (see Category:Wikipedia backlog) that doesn't require admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi Protection request.

This page Turkish occupation of northern Syria has been seeing an influx of IP's adding text stating that Al-Monitor is not reliable. The IP's 1 2 3 are obvious socks, all come from the same location on the coast of Saudi Arabia, all have the exact same edits and edit history. I would like to request a semi-protection on the page for a temporary amount of time for this, I think this slow the tide of socking. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Des Vallee Make the request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  // Timothy :: talk  20:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue Thanks, didn't know that was the place. Des Vallee (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, RfPP is the place to go. The alternating IPs is not socking on the face of it, but an IP user on a dynamically allocated IP (they are all the same ISP).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban application to non-EN wiki's

I'm serving a six month topic ban from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. Does this ban apply to non-EN wiki's? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions, blocks and topic bans only apply on the Wiki they were imposed on. Administrative actions on one Wiki have no power on another Wiki unless there has been a global account action. Community bans, which is what was imposed on you, are only effective in the community they were imposed in. Be aware though that another community (i.e. language) may take that you've been topic banned on en-Wiki into account if you happen (not presuming you would) to cause issues there. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandbh - I would advise you, first, to limit your editing to encyclopedias in which you are fluent in the language, and, if you think that you are fluent in a language but are not sure about that, it isn't enough. We have many editors who are not competent in English, and we have a culture of being patient with editors who try to use English with difficulty. Some non-English Wikipedias may not be patient if your command of the language is less than fluent. Second, before you start to edit other Wikipedias, develop a clear and realistic idea of what your mistakes were here that led to your topic ban, and be extra careful to avoid repeating those mistakes. A good record or a less than good record are likely to be taken into account by the English Wikipedia in deciding how much to welcome you back when your topic ban is over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it disconcerting that an editor who received a topic ban here only after a very extended period of general disruption and discussions in multiple venues, including at ArbCom, is considering taking their behavior patterns to other WMF projects before their topic ban has even been discussed being lifted here. That seems to be an indication that Sandbh has not taken onboard the validity of this community's concern for their editing behavior. Whether this is sufficient for additional sanctions I am not certain, but it is -- as I said -- disturbing.

I'm not very familiar with Meta. Is there a venue there in which Sandbh's apparent interest in expanding the scope of their disruptive editing can be brought up? I think it only fair that either other wikis be warned about this, or that Sandbh's topic ban be expanded to be a global one, if such a thing as a global topic ban is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with BMK on this – this kind of query (especially combined with barely editing in the three months since the topic ban was imposed) is definitely raising some large red flags. Number 57 22:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not a strict analogy), some indefinitely blocked editors are encouraged to show that they can be productive on other projects under the standard offer and we've seen some appeals based on the offer declined because they've just waited out the six months. Perhaps a more charitable (or naïve) interpretation from me. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion to edit productively elsewhere is often made to those appealing indef blocks or site bans, but I think that those who are topic banned here are generally advised to productivey edit here in other subject areas, rather than to edit on other wikis in the subject area they are banned from on en.wiki. I think it would be ill-advised and rude on our part to subject our fellow Wikipedians who speak other languages to the possibility of disruptive behavior that we have sanctioned here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah like I said, not a great analogy. But I think our hands are tied: the English Wikipedia community only has jurisdiction over English Wikipedia and the bans it imposes (to my knowledge, anyways) do not carry over to other projects like Simple etc. It's not something I would personally encourage, but it's hard to see what else can be done. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I asked if there was someplace on Meta where a possible global sanction could be suggested. We can't do anything, but we are also part of the global WMF community, which, possibly can do something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Making sure that some global Stewards who are familiar with en.wiki are aware of this thread: @AmandaNP, Bsadowski1, Jon Kolbert, MarcoAurelio, Martin Urbanec, and MusikAnimal:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure stewards, especially myself, really have anything to contribute here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So...one project finds an editor's behavior disruptive enough to topic ban them, the editor threatens to go to other language projects, where, presumably, they'll repeat their behavior pattern, and there's no mechanism by which other projects can at least be warned about this possibility, or the editor officially warned away from potentially disrupting another project? That seems like a hole in the system ripe for exploitation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking for simple the topic ban wouldn't apply there. However, we don't typically give much leeway to people on sanctions from en.wiki as we often get a flood of them when people say go edit elsewhere and proove yourself. As such people on indef blocks/bans here only get one strike there before they are blocked there. Topic bans we don't have an equivalent policy but I suspect we would likely follow suit if they showed the same behaviour there. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Canterbury Tail; Robert McClenon; Sdrqaz|; AmandaNP and DJSasso for your prompt and considered responses. For the record, 1. the discussions resulting in my community imposed topic ban occurred at ANI, rather than in multiple venues (I'm happy to be corrected if I have this wrong). 2. Arbcom declined to take on the case, which involved at least two other editors besides myself. 3. I have chosen not to edit much for the past three months, and may well serve out my topic ban here on the same basis. That said I've used my time productively to complete a topic ban related article accepted for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed Journal, drafted a submission for the relevant international body; and have had several productive ongoing discussions via PM and Zoom, with WP colleagues.

It was interesting to read standard offer and the {{2nd chance}} procedure; kudos to Sdrqaz for mentioning those.

If I have anything further to say about Beyond my Ken's responses, I will do so at their talk page. Sandbh (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be deliberately specious. The discussions about disruption in the subject area of the chemical elements -- of which your behavior was very much a part -- took place in multiple venues. That they ended up with a TB for you, decided as the result of an ANI thread, doesn't mean that the prior discussions didn't take place, nor does it mean that the topic ban wasn't the result of the totality of all the discussions.

I will not accept any comments from you about this subject at my talk page. If you have anything to say, you'd best say it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to clear up any confusion, while the discussions that led to my TB occurred at ANI they were informed by edits and actions that occurred mainly at WP:ELEM and periodic table.

I expect the non-en editors will be able to judge the calibre and appropriateness of my contribution. I further expect I will have nothing more to contribute to this current thread. Sandbh (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Having glanced at their most recent contributions, I'm also a bit concerned that the OP appears to be making proxy edits at the request of an article subject (Louise Katz), based on apparent off-wiki requests. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I participated in some of the previous ANIs regarding Sandbh. At least until the last one, where I got frustrated enough that I decided to take at least the twelve days of Christmas off WP, so I didn't appear at the ANI thread. Currently I am back and WT:ELEM seems to be functioning just fine; article work is being done, and no one seems to be wanting to take anyone else to ANI for the last two months.

Sandbh went to de.wp after this thread to discuss the same topic that had started the whole issue back here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements: the composition of group 3 of the periodic table. The discussion is at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Chemie#Einteilung_und_Anordnung_der_Elemente_in_Vorlage:Infobox_Chemisches_Element_Vorlage:Periodensystem. I was already there, since I got invited on my talk page by User:Tinux (who wanted to know where the en.wp discussion for this took place). The decision that de.wp decides on isn't the most important thing for me, since it's not my home-wiki (I speak the language to some extent, but I mostly edit here): it's for that community to decide first of all. I suppose we shall have to wait and see what happens in July when his TBAN expires here. Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Like others who have posted here, I was a bit concerned about Sandbh editing on other wikis in his banned topic area rather than editing on this wiki in non-banned topic areas. But to be fair, before doing so, he came here first to ask whether he could or not. He could have simply researched this issue, come to the same conclusion, and then begun editing. IMO his choosing to ask should be commended and not characterized by saying he "threatens to go to other language projects". Asking a question does not constitute making a threat, and IMO 'threatens' is a loaded word that seems to fail WP:AGF. In response to this, Sandbh did not immediately fire back in the same venue (as was his wont a few months ago), but IMO wisely considered discussing the situation in user talk space. Would that discussion have been civil? Alas we will never know, because the discussion was declined. This, too, was no doubt a wise action, but it means that we cannot yet learn to what extent he has learned his lesson. YBG (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with YBG. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Afghanistan

Please read this article

13.March.2019 Addressing the grand Sadat gathering at the presidential palace (Arg), president M. Ashraf Ghani said that on Wednesday he will issue a decree on the inclusion of Sadat ethnic group in new electronic national identity card (e-NIC). President Ghani is expected to issue a decree on writing Sadat as an ethnicity in the e-NIC.

15.March.2019 President Ashraf Ghani has decreed mentioning ‘Sadat tribe’ in the electronic national identity.

All this content has a credible source, even on the website of the President of Afghanistan in Persian there is a video of a speech on this subject, but unfortunately it is deleted by Wikipedia users, I ask Wikipedia administrators to follow this whole issue and protect this page

This material has also been published on the website of the President of Afghanistan

Ashraf Ghani's speech video Persian language news agencies such as BBC Farsi, Tolo News, Ariana News, covered this news in the media.

Sadat, Sayyid, Sadat (disambiguation) The content mentioned in these articles has also been removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyed.mt (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sayyed.mt: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia. If I'm reading this right, it is a cpntent dispute. The admin's noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. You should discuss the matter on the talk pages of relevant article(s), seeking CONSENSUS. If an impasse is reached, please follow the dispute resolution processes. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Please help me! I talked to the user Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs) and he started deleting the content again for the reasons I gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyed.mt (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

The issue was resolved and the dispute ended. Sayyed.mt (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyed.mt (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Jonas Tomalty by user user:Jonastomalty

User continuing to make edits to page despite being warned on 25 August 2020 and has failed to disclose any COI or answer the warning. User is making edits such as WP:W2W, WP:PUFFERY, AND WP:REFSPAM. User has been issued a second warning, but due to the severity the undersigned believes that some sort of administrative sanction is warranted at this time. Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, this is more of an Incident than it is AN fare. Anyway, indef p-block from the mainspace bio page. El_C 22:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonas Tomalty

Regarding the "Jonas Tomalty" page: Jonas Tomalty here. First of all my apologies. I wasn’t aware that I could not simply add links to my own profile. I in no way intended to go outside of the Wikipedia guidelines and disturb the process. I had no intention of trying to financially gain from any of these citations either. As an established artist of 25 years it is very important for me to have a reliable Wikipedia page as a primary source for fans and media. As you can see from my username I was not trying to be sneaky or hide my identity. I am Jonas Tomalty. I will permanently refrain from making any edits or contributions to my own page from now on. In return I ask you please remove all of these flags from my page so that established and reliable Wikipedia editors can freely contribute and so that when someone opens my page it comes across as completely legitimate. I thank you for taking my appeal into consideration.

Jonastomalty (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonastomalty, not sure you're in the right place. The article talk page is the place to discuss the potential removal of maintenance tags. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting that this message was also refactored to my talk page. I've responded on the user's talk page with some advise on how to proceed. El_C 15:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Hailindians

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

---

Please revoke the talk page access of this user as they are using abusive language to me when I warn them. Please check it.TTP1233 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Paid edits reverted for ?

Last fall I started a discussion here when I was blocked from editing because I'm a disclosed paid editor. The "verdict" was then that paid editing is ok as far as the Wikipedia rules are followed. Last week I had edited Varma's Wikipedia article for nearly 3 hours, see diff when GSS reverted them saying "Multiple issues; addition of primary source, lack of inline citation and advertising. Please use the article talk page to request changes as per WP:COIEDIT)". So I guess GSS meant that I was using too many primary sources there? I explained the case on the talk page telling that only 1/8 sources I had used was company internal (the one being about their financial figures). No response. I also wrote to GSS's talk page too but still no response. I'm afraid of adding my edits back as someone might accuse me of edit war then but I don't think this is fair at all. I am following the rules as well as I can but if someone is against paid editing they can come and revert my edits any time they want without any proper feedback about what they think I'm doing wrong? Jjanhone (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy WP:PAID says:

If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. It does not matter whether you are paid directly by the client, or paid indirectly by an employer on behalf of the client. Editors who receive payment for their edits or actions on the English Wikipedia must comply with both the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and the local policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia.

It says you must make this disclosure on your user page, on the article talk page, or in edit summaries. The WMF Terms of Use requires the same thing. I see no such disclosure on your user page, on Talk:Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company, or on any of your 81 edits to Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company. [29]. What am I missing? Where is your disclosure? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you think that the listing of all of your many clients on your user pages fulfills this requirement. I don't agree. Although the policy says you can make your disclosure on your user page, I believe the expectation is that it would not be hidden in a long list of names, but would be a clear and obvious disclosure. I'm not sure why paid editors are even given the user page option, the disclosure should really be on the article talk page, or on each and every edit summary.

I think the bottom line is this: circumstances make it necessary to allow paid editing, but the majority of Wikipedia editors, I believe, do not like paid editing because it undermines the voluntary nature of our project. We may be forced to allow it, but most of us have no inclination of making things any easier for paid editors. If we're going to have to allow it, then you have to make clear and obvious statements of conflicts of interest due to paid editing. I don't believe that you've done this -- in any case you certainly haven't done it to my satisfaction.

I'd like to know what other editors feel about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Did you not look at the top of the article talk page? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sh*t. I missed it. Sorry. I did look, but I didn't see. My bad. My sentiments remain the same, although the specifics are obviously incorrect. Time to stop editing tonight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You're good. That template honestly needs a unique background color or something to make it stand out better. :) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Made some updates to {{Connected contributor (paid)}}, that's my contribution to this, now back to sleep. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 09:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. So do you think I was breaking some rules while editing the article? If I wasn't, can I add my edits back? Jjanhone (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: I think the statistics updates you made can be added back without issue. I think the section you added ("The roots of Varma") is problematic because your source is a primary source, not a secondary source, and relative to the entire article it may also be a neutral point of view issue. Please also read WP:PRIMARY, particularly Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I am troubled that GSS did not simply remove the portions that were likely at issue instead of just reverting your edits completely. Per the prior discussion you linked above: In my opinion, it's best to treat the "paid" angle as irrelevant and focus on the edits: if someone repeatedly violates WP:NPOV after warnings, they may be blocked for disruption related to the POV-pushing, without regard to their disclosed paid status. – Xeno, also what Swarm said at that prior discussion is still relevant here. GSS's edit summary pointed to the addition of primary sources (though they seem to believe primary sources are completely disallowed, which is not the case), lack of inline citations which is simply false looking at the material they reverted that you added, and advertising which is pretty vague but I suspect is referring to "The roots of Varma" section you added. They then implore you to use talk page requests per WP:COIEDIT, which COIEDIT does not require, it simply encourages. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Thank you! I added all back and hope to continue the discussion on Varma's talk page, not here. The source for roots of Varma is not primary but an independent book about Varma. The chapter may be too long (but it's still a small part of the book) now but let's shorten it together? Jjanhone (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus on the article talk page, you should not have "added it all back". Paid editors have a motivation to get their edits into an article which has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia and everything to do with improving their bottom line. If Jjanhone continues this behavior on Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company, I will propose that they be blocked from editing that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: *sigh* ... I did not say to add it back. Yes, you do not need to seek permission to make edits, you are only discouraged from doing so on articles where you are being compensated. WP:BOLD still applies to you. However, so does the way we work at Wikipedia overall in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You are presently at the discuss stage, re-adding the content identified as problematic ("The roots of Varma") prior to getting consensus is not acceptable. Please do tread carefully from now on, as I am inclined to support Beyond My Ken's proposal to block you from that article. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I added all back as you were thinking that the reference I've used is Varma internal while it is not. Otava has published a book and Varma has downloaded one chapter of the book on their web site which I linked so that people can read the chapter. But I hope we could continue the discussion on Varma's talk page.Jjanhone (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• For those with any interest in following-up on this discussion, there has been some forward motion on the article talk page (Talk:Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company#Roots of Varma) and additional comments there would be welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyberbot edits

This one was not ok (and I do not immediately even know how to fix this). The operator has not been active for a week, so I am not sure whether it males sense to leave a talk page message (which I will probably do anyway). Anybody else has seen something like this recently?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have (hopefully) un-borked the page, for what it's worth. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: it looks like the last edit there was ok, possibly one-off glitch. Yes, you should leave the operator a talk message. I can't see us admins needing to do anything else about this right now (we're not going to block the bot over a single glitch on a project page); if it keeps breaking the page and the operator is unresponsive though please let use know (WP:BOTN is a good venue). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, my point was to see centrally whether there are more glitches. Blocking the bot over one edit is not reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this has come up before, and I feel like it's something to do with either a formatting, edit conflict, or timing error on the part of the bot. I do agree that as a one-off edit it's nothing to get hung up on. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a one-off incident. I reported this to Cyberpower678 last month and received no response. -FASTILY 21:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

I feel the latest discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography under the built up tab started on there is a personal attack on me and my contributions. Who do I report this to for investigation please. - RailwayJG

WP:ANI is the usual place but as this is here... I’m not seeing any personal attacks in that discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel the editor of that discussion has made an unfair comment about my editing and as I am disabled. I feel they are attacking my editing and writing. I know it can be seen as constructive criticism but they haven't clarified if they are being personal or not.

Please sign your posts, Railway3G. The editor was more than likely referring to bad editing practice. I see no personal attack. Tiderolls 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I, too, see no personal attack and agree with Tide rolls's assessment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Whilst not directly related to the issue I can see how some of RailwayJG's edits can be a little unpopular, rather than removing un-sourced items or minor technical errors (that may well be correct) or removing things because they are wrong perhaps improving them or leaving them for others with a note that a citation is needed maybe more welcome. Robidy (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Ethics & Personal attack by Goddard2000

In response to an argument (diff) about user's approach towards article's content and inability to give explanation to WP:OR in previous talk topic, user Goddard2000 decides to accuse me (diff) in attempting "to present them Nazi" and claims that they explained something to my "previous account which was banned".--IrelandCork (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User, IrelandCork YOU were the one that implied i was being anti-Kumyk, i dont appreciate these accusations so i told you not to try to present me as a Nazi to the admins. I dont understand why you are making several unnecessary reports that will lead to nothing. The admins on here aren't stupid they will see what i wrote.

--Goddard2000 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, they are not and will see. Also this is my first report on you, yet again ignoring WP:Ethics.--IrelandCork (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, as this altercation has occurred on my personal talk page [30] and I was asked by one of the users here to weigh in... here I will be doing just that.

1. . Both users should stop accusing each other of being anti-X.
2. . Anyone reading this should understand some of the relevant history. The Aukh region, AKA Akkia, is a border region currently administrated by Dagestan, which has historically had Chechen inhabitants, which were deported to Siberia/Kazakhstan in 1944 (Operation Lentil (Caucasus)), and other ethnic groups of Dagestan -- primarily Laks but also Avars and Kumyks -- moved into their homes. Some reconciliation has happened but disputes continue today. Additionally, like many other Chechen-inhabited areas, there was a period historically where the area was under the suzerainty/rule in some form of Kumyks -- it's a known aspect of Chechen history that lowland Chechens were ruled over by Kabardins and Kumyks at various points. Neither user likely agrees with my presentation of the history here, but it is the most NPOV summary I am capable of at the moment. When they call each other anti-Chechen or anti-Kumyk, that's the context, and it should be understood as such.
3. . I have interacted with Goddard2000 as well and while I don't always agree with him, it is not exactly correct to say he is always or even usually a disruptive editor. Have I disagreed with his bold actions, well yes. But I have to be fair here. My take is that he is generally here to clean up what he sees as incorrect info, the problem being that there is disagreement on what info/sources/etc are acceptable, and a lack of civility on both sides -- a phenomenon that has been growing on Caucasus topics lately, causing them to increasingly resemble the Balkan topic area. At least he tries though. Goddard2000 has also done edits which can uncontroversially be called improvements [[31]]. IrelandCork does not have a long editing history, so I can't say much.
4. . Goddard2000 is right that the edits he is disputing are disruptive. This one by KrakDuck removed sourced and apparently RS info [[32]]. It was reverted by Goddard, who was himself reverted by IrelandCork. Goddard seems to be in the right policy-wise here on this case. But not entirely, as he also removed info on the subjugation of local Chechens by Kumyks which was also sourced [[33]] as "literary vandalism", an unfortunate choice of words but, as I mentioned before, while we can and should check to make sure the source in question is RS, this is certainly not inherently "anti-Chechen" to mention. The page should probably incorporate both the info from Shikhaliev (removed by KrakDuck and IrelandCork) and that from Butskovsky, unless it is shown that one or both should not be considered RS.
5. . Now for socking, and accusations thereof. On my talk page, IrelandCork seems to insinuate that Goddard2000 is a likely sock of Lamberd or Zandxo. As I understand it Zandxo is in fact Reiner Gavriel. Meanwhile, Goddard2000 has an open case that KrakDuck is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arsenekoumyk of Arsenekoumyk, whom I have interacted with. While I have no idea who is or isn't who, there are a couple things that are worth mentioning...

-- 1) Who would sock as Goddard2000? This doesn't make sense -- neither chronologically, nor in terms of motive. The timeframe doesn't check out for Lamberd. Zandxo is now editing as Reiner Gavriel, and has no sanctions as far as I can see, so why couldn't he just edit using that account? Socking can get you banned, you'd need to be stupid or otherwise have a good motive, like already being banned.

-- 2) Regarding Goddard2000's case that KrakDuck is Arsen -- I have no idea, I'd lean towards "unlikely" just based on personality alone. But is KrakDuck a sock of someone? I believe the evidence strongly points to "yes" -- does this edit summary look like that of someone who is actually a newbie to edit warring on Wikipedia [[34]]? No. He is likely a sock.

Lastly, frankly, IrelandCork coming to my page and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about Goddard was unfortunate. If you think someone is a sock, you should just open an SPI. Hope this was helpful. --Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I must amend my statement. Upon inspection, Goddard2000 was completely right -- not only in restoring the sourced info deleted by KrakDuck, but also in the removal of text sourced to this clearly non-RS source here [[35]]. It is a historical military document, composed ages ago, and it shows, in ways that make Goddard's characterization of it... accurate. Like this racist slime, for instance -- Кумыки в душе хотя не менее прочих горских народов к разбою наклонны, но соседством и частым обращением с персиянами заимствовались некоторого образования, воздерживающего их производить сие ремесло явно; сим вместе, однакож, научились и [241] персидской хитрости и коварству, находя всегда способы к прикрытию своих измен. Вообще гораздо просвещеннее прочих горских народов. I think I'll leave that untranslated, but feel free to use Google or whatever Russian translator you want. Or you can just take my word that this is not something even resembling an RS.--Calthinus (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Firstly, I didn't mean to insinuate that Lamberd or Zandho are Gooddard2000. Secondly, I haven't accused anyone of being "anti" or "pro". I only pointed out that Goddard and others tried to misrepresent the same sources in a certain way, which is WP:OR. I also think that "Sala-Uzden" part is most likely WP:OR on both sides, but unfortunately I didn't see that claim from either side. Which, in turn, makes me think that that is all "political". Thirdly, your first point about the history is right and I think that edits in Aukh also have politicalish flavor. Phrases like "Chechens always lived" raise the concern, you may compare the article to the version on Russian Wikipedia, and may be decide in the best way. Those are the reasons why I invited you, as you're noticed to have commented on that talk page already.--IrelandCork (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The next problem, Calthinus. Goddards changes away wording "inhabited always by Chechens", but writes: "Endirey (one of the oldest and biggest settlements in Aukh)". Endirey has nothing to do with Aukh as far as it goes. This is clearly marginal theory. I could try bringing many many sources and rewrite the article, but I'd firstly like Goddard to stop which seems to be "propagating".--IrelandCork (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Raised a couple of more concerning questions on Talk:Aukh#Gueni,_Endirey_and_other_WP:Marginal_or_Just_absent_in_the_Source --IrelandCork (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: But all of that has nothing to do with WP:Ethics and aggressive style. Content dispute is another issue and, I hope, everyone can be civil enough to work it out eventually. But imperative discussion style, like "you do that, it's you revenge, you say I'm Nazi is uncomfortable.--IrelandCork (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I repeat, there have been violations on both sides, you are both best off if you return to the talk page. You're right that the latter part of this discusses a content dispute. When you bring up Zandxo and Lamberd under the title of "suspicious behavior", an insinuation socking is always the likely interpretation. Thanks for clearing that up. I would tend to agree that Goddard should stop labeling edits he disagrees with in terms of content as "vandalism", that would be helpful, maybe he'll take a hint. --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Quite difficult, he's now looping the discussion.--IrelandCork (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User Calthinus, I would not mind the Butkovsky edit even if the author of it was racist, i could have posted some other source that disagreed with that one and it would be fair imo. But the thing that bothered me was that he completely erased my edits that did not target any nation but just stated the fact that Chechens historically lived there. And for revenge he edited in the Butkovsky source which confirms that you can't come to a consensus with him at all. Thank you for taking the time and looking into this. Could you please look into the Uchar-Hajji article as well? i posted every source in the talk page and its pages that confirms my edits. I can repost them in here and make my case if you want. --Goddard2000 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit busy here. Butskovsky was an old military document -- so even if it wasn't racist, it would not be admissible as a source -- WP:PRIMARY, for starters. --Calthinus (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson

I'm happy to participate in the Wikipedia community while complying with the Terms of Service. Please let me know what I'd need to do to meet those as a Paid Editor. I remain open to learning more about how to operate this way within the Wikipedia ecosystem.

It is ultimately my goal to help Wikipedia articles remain factual, which is why many people choose to work directly with me.

I'm posting this to gain a better understanding of what caused me to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia, and the activity that's since occurred (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson paid editing).

It would be helpful for me to get clarification on some points around how Wikipedia operates so I can better follow guidelines going forth. Here's some initial ones:

• Why wasn't this article (Draft:Neil Krug) considered notable by Wikipedia standards?
• Can you also please clarify what Wikipedia considers as a consensus and how many editors need to be involved before one is reached?
• Lastly, there has been at least 8 articles I’ve participated in that have now been nominated for deletion – one of these going back to 2011 (of which my involvement was minimal). What’s the reasoning here?

I look forward to hearing about how to best move forward. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that you have edited here more than 10 years and you've never been directed to WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV or WP:COI previously. Tiderolls 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I mean your questions don't seem directly relevant to why you were blocked (although I'd also note that the block reason doesn't seem either fully accurate or fully complete). Not all of your work was "advertising or promotion", however, you were also repeatedly not complying with utilising AfC etc. After you not using it was disputed once, then it would move from the "very strongly advised" to "required". The AfDs (which I would imagine did come from the nom looking at your additions in the listed thread) do have their reasoning provided. Mainly notability, with some excabating factors like promotional content, which alone I wouldn't view as sufficient to delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • One suggestion is to stop using buzzwords like "ecosystem" instead of writing precise sentences that don't use cute euphemisms you read somewhere and thought it would be fun to adopt. I am a volunteer editor here in large measure to try to eradicate this kind of marketing-ese PR balderdash from encyclopedia articles that students and other people who aren't professional writers look to as exemplars of acceptable common parlance. "Silo", "solutions", "pivot", and "ecosystem", used outside their specific agricultural, chemical, physics, and biology contexts, are the first examples that are immediately jumping into my mind, along with "impact" as a substitute for the verb "to affect" and the noun "effect" that apparently people have decided are too difficult to use correctly. (If there's not a physical striking, there's not an "impact"; there's an "effect." It's not that hard.) I don't believe I'm alone in this philosophy. Thanks for taking this to heart. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • What about the "Environmental Impact Statement"? [36] The OED says "The phrasal verb impact on, as in when produce is lost, it always impacts on the bottom line, has been in the language since the 1960s. Many people disapprove of it despite its relative frequency, saying that make an impact on or other equivalent wordings should be used instead. New formations of verbs from nouns (as in the case of impact) are often regarded as somehow inferior." [37] I think the water is well under the bridge on the use of "impact" in the way that you disdain, considering it's been going on for about 50 years now. And, yes, the rules about "affect" and "effect" are difficult to remember, so avoiding them to avoid pedantic criticism is reasonable.
      Your larger point is sorta valid, but I see no reason that "pivot" can't be used about a corporation in the same way that it's often used about a second baseman, or as an instruction to a dancer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • These are perfectly reasonable points. Re: the "environmental impact statement": I have no problem with that usage; an impact is physical, and dumping a bunch of paraquat into a wetland is as physically impactful as a meteorite strike. Re: "pivot", the dancer and second baseman are indeed physically making turns on an axis; a business entity, though, which by definition is not a natural person capable of engaging in a physical action, may take up a new business strategy very quickly, but it doesn't have quadriceps and the only way it "pivots" is in a TED Talk. And re: the positive effect this talk has had on my affect, anybody who is capable of recognizing more or less instinctively, e.g., what happens when a baseball gets lodged in the ivy at Wrigley Field, or alternately in a catcher's mask or other paraphernalia, and/or of explaining the infield-fly rule, has more than enough candlepower to learn "affect" and "effect"... It's the uncritical American-business-school-ese, and the privilege-loaded baggage that goes along with it, that makes me tetchy. Wikipedia editors are, possibly, on the precipice of becoming the de facto "usage panel" of some international agglomeration of national English varieties, simply because we are free (and ubiquitous, thanks to Google, augh) and hence more accessible in, e.g., Odisha and Eswatini and Tristan da Cunha than is the OED. But this must necessarily be a conversation for another day (and forum). Onward and upward! Thank you, BMK! Holy cow! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Convert Block to Site Ban

Having read the discussion on the appellant's talk page, I have come to the unpleasant conclusion that the appellant either doesn't understand and isn't about to understand, or does understand and thinks that our rules are for other editors. I recommend that the community convert the administrator block to a six-month Site Ban. The question about why Neil Krug isn't notable illustrates exactly why we insist that paid editors use Articles for Creation. Notability isn't the only concern; neutrality also is. Allowing paid editors to move non-neutral articles into article space would show non-neutral articles to our readers, who trust that neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and would create extra work for volunteers to clean them up. This editor is creating too much work to clean up their mess.

• Support Site-Ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Technically if the Community denies the appeal it automatically converts to a siteban unless we specifically exempt it. I don't see any particular reason why this can't be handled under an admin block, however Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that unless determined specifically to be a site ban, another admin can unilaterally lift the indef block if they deem there is an exigent reason for doing so - whether or not the appeal was denied.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Nosebagbear's point is if this appeal received due consideration from the community and fails, it is a site ban unless we specifically say it shouldn't be treated as such. WP:CBAN is quite clear that 'Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".' Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The section above is appealing a partial block: does a denied or no-consensus result convert into an indefinite ban from the affected portion of the block? –xeno^talk 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say yes; I think that passage is meant to say that admins shouldn't unilaterally lift a block that the community has specifically said it thinks is correct. I think that interpretation also jives with how we've been applying it here recently where we've considered and retained blocks but also found a consensus to not apply this clause for whatever reason. I'll dig through the archives later, but I think that happened in the case of some quasi-third-party appeals. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Site-Ban per Robert. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why moving to site ban would be required where the editor is already constrained from article space in the status quo - Robert McClenon: are you suggesting the incident editor's contributions to non-article namespaces should also be banned by the community? –xeno^talk 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems moot, given that an unsuccessful block appeal to AN becomes a ban anyway, but ignoring that I'd rather give the editor time to show that they understand and can abide by editing restrictions. Blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive, as it only creates demand for those who don't.I'm far from convinced from Jacobmcpherson's responses that they will follow them, but I would have liked to have had time to find out. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban per above rationalization, and when I read a paid editor writing stuff like "I tried swapping out the image, but it seems the person who took it wants theirs to be featured, despite it not being current or how the subject of the article would like to be represented." Hang on, so now it's about "how the subject of the article would like to be represented"? Seriously? That's not how things work, one of this guy's clients thinks that because he paid for editing that his interests override that of the community? Acousmana (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where this fits in, but I started a conversation on the talk page of an article. My understanding is its preferred a Paid Editor requests changes in this forum going forward? Talk:Jacob Sartorius#Credible sources Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think they should request edits on the article talk page, not here at AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - My reason for proposing a site-ban was to ensure that this single-admin block is not subsequently lifted by a single admin acting in good faith on a bad-faith request. I will also comment on two points by User:Bilby. I may have overlooked or forgotten the rules that an unsuccessful block appeal is a de facto ban, and that makes my concern less urgent. Second, Bilby says, and I agree, that blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive. Jm has been ignoring the rules for years, either through ignorance or because they are for other people, and I have no reason to believe that they suddenly want to be a good paid editor. (I personally think that there are no good paid editors, only neutral ones and bad ones, but that is only my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban as inappropriate (and at least premature): All new editors require guidance to develop adherence to site purpose. If the practice is to move to banning disclosed paid editors because they took a few missteps and need assistance complying with site purpose, the obvious result will be an increase in undisclosed paid editing. The problem with shifting the balance to undisclosed paid editing is it causes a much greater editorial and administrative overhead. Edits by disclosed paid editors can be very easily monitored and tracked. Addressing undisclosed paid editing requires off-wiki sleuthing, trawling microwork sites, issuing take-down notices, administrator and Arbitration Committee involvement, editor investigations of contributor's personally identifying information, and a custom checkuser queue almost no one wants to work (with a backlog that often breaks 100 -

• This is not a new editor, the account is 12 years old! this dude's BS is what you call taking the piss. Acousmana (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Risker, can you update?).

(Disclosure: I modified the discussed editor's block to allow non-article space editing; see #Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson). –xeno^talk 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Per Xeno's request - there are currently 95 tickets in the "Paid editing" queue on OTRS. Without researching or commenting on the specifics of this matter, I agree with Xeno that driving paid editing underground completely is not really in the best interests of the project. Further, given the fact that the Terms of Use specifically envision a process whereby paid editors can and should disclose, it seems pretty obvious that banning paid editing outright would be an issue in and of itself. Remember that we do have respected users who would meet the definition of paid editing by virtue of their publicly revealed work as a Wikimedians in residence or in similar roles. It's not particularly helpful to drive paid editing completely underground, because then everyone (and I do mean everyone) becomes a suspect. Risker (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson

I'm afraid I didn't give the original blocked editor clear enough guidance. This section should hopefully be more focused.

Jacobmcpherson is currently blocked from editing article space by Justlettersandnumbers (who had given leave for me to modify the indefinite block to partial).

Presently, the user is requesting the ability to edit article space again. A no-consensus result will result from them remaining blocked from article space with a block remaining modifiable by administrators. A strong decline would (theoretically) result in a community restriction from article space requiring a consensus at AN to reverse.

Apart from opposing a site ban, I take no position on the editor's request to lift the partial block. –xeno^talk 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, xeno. I also oppose a site ban, and suggest that as a matter of priority we establish a procedure for (a) warning anyone who requests an unblock here to be advised that the outcome may be a community siteban, and (b) allowing withdrawal of that request within a reasonable time of being so advised.

In this specific case, I indeffed the editor because of extensive failure to make proper paid-editor disclosure, aggravated by an WP:IDHT attitude to our paid-editor guidance. I had no intention that the block should be permanent – provided of course that the editor agreed to comply in full with our policies and guidance for people in his position. He's had plenty of time to do that, but has chosen not to. Instead he has continued to ignore policy – this statement, for example, is demonstrably less that 100% transparent and clearly in violation of the WP:TOU. Xeno, with your agreement, I suggest that the original site-wide indef-block should be re-imposed until and unless this person (a) makes full and complete disclosure of the actual client (who made payment, and on whose behalf) for all paid edits to date and (b) agrees to comply from now on with our paid-editor guidance as if it were policy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant user page in that statement, and all my paid contributions are disclosed there. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson, what Justlettersandnumbers is saying is in order to fully compliant with paid editing disclosure, one needs to disclose both the client as well as the employer. It seems only an employer is listed on your user page. Are you able to comply with that understanding? –xeno^talk 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

xeno, for reasons that I can't discuss here, I fear that even that is ... well, less than fully transparent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. In case it's not 100% clear from my reply to xeno above, or lost in my general wordy blether, firmly oppose unblock from article space, and recommend re-imposition of the original indefinite block until and unless the editor provides full and honest disclosure of all paid edits and the related client and employer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  If the editor resumes paid activities before providing proper disclosure I will undo my modification, or you may. –xeno^talk 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried my best with the format provided by Wikipedia, since the clients listed on my user page all came through the company listed. Please let me know how I can better generate the list. The current parameters don't seem inclusive of all possible paid editing scenarios. I remain open to finding a solution Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson: To help clarify, the client that paid for the editing for each article listed on User:Jacobmcpherson was the subject of the article? Perhaps something like

* [[Subject Inc.]] (Client: Subject Inc.)

Please also note you must disclose any affiliate partners involved, such as freelance sites.

* [[Subject Inc.]] (Client: Subject Inc.; Affiliate: Intermediary Inc.)

(Justlettersandnumbers: please advise whether this would resolve your item (a) above.) –xeno^talk 19:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused by this, did you look at how I disclosed here User:Jacobmcpherson? I don't go through freelance sites for this type of work. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson, You have to disclose where the money came from. For example: I'm Joe Smith, and I form Joe Smith Inc. for my Wikipedia business. Joe Smith Inc. gets contracted by 'StarBizPR' on behalf of Bill Actor. I need to write something like 'I edited the 'Bill Actor' article for payment on behalf of StarBizPR via Joe Smith Inc.' MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The money was paid to the company listed on my user page, and I handled edits/articles for the clients listed Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson, Right, but if you were for example an owner of that company, you would not put in your disclosure that you were paid by that company. You'd write where the money came from - if it was directly from the article subject, you would write that. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, this wasn't 100% apparent to me in the format provided by Wikipedia - as there's various types of organisational structures, and I tried my best to accurately depict my particular scenario / relationship as a paid editor. The other issue, is there doesn't seem to be way to list multiple "articles" from the same "employer" in the current template Template:Paid. Hopefully this clarifies my approach to the situation Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like the template was updated since I last looked - made changes to my user page. Out of curiosity, where I would I participate in discussions around paid editing on Wikipedia? I'm really interested in providing valuable input that will hopefully improve the relationship between Wikipedia and paid editors Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson: Thank you for updating your disclosures, those appear to have better compliance to the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy. These matters are sometimes discussed at the talk page of that page, Wikipedia:Village Pumps, this noticeboard, the conflict of interests noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, and countless other places (look in or search the archives). Have fun digging into wiki-archaeology! Come back after a few megabytes of deep further reading and I'd support a conditional lifting of the partial block with a commitment from you to make a stronger effort to follow the WP:NPOV policy and conform all contributions to project scope. –xeno^talk 23:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Halifax Transit long-term vandal

Previous discussion here. Various IPs have been adding false information to Halifax Transit and related articles for some time, including a fake list of future transit routes under the heading "Future Transit System". The page was protected in the past because of this. They do not respond to attempts to engage, but with strange and combative edit summaries ([38], [39]). 156.57.180.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) emerged in January adding the same content. Unfortunately they are still active, adding strange/uncited information to other Halifax Transit-related articles. Ben MacLeod (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Could someone revdel an edit please

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

---

This edit by TheTransportHub requires revdeleting as it is a word for word copyvio of the cited ref. Thanks Nightfury 13:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, but please use a {{revdel}} request next time on the article itself. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks, wasn't aware of the template, will do in future. Nightfury 13:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

J-Man11 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, J-Man11 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim_(talk) 17:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § J-Man11 unblocked

J-Man11 was community banned. According to WP:UNBAN: "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee." What serious issues were there that overruled the community? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I cannot find where that happened, though I do remember that user name. I do feel the NOTHERE aspect should have been brought here, and said as much. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a 3X ban, see here and here. Blablubbs|talk 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal by Debresser

Debresser has requested that an appeal of a two-week block for a topic ban violation imposed by Cullen328 be copied here for review. Debresser's appeal is accordingly copied below for discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I posted at WP:ANI in violation of my topic ban not on purpose, but because I hadn't checked. Had I checked the ban notification, as I have just now, I would have seen that it includes not only articles and article talkpage but also all other discussions.

In addition, I agree with those editors at WP:ANI who feel that even though technically the blocking editor was within their rights to block me, it would have made sense to give me a change to reply. If given the chance, I would likely have struck the comment that violated my ban. Also I agree with those editors there who feel that a two-week block is a bit heavy handed, since it is not as though I said anything that hadn't been said there by others before me.

In short, if my block could be revoked, I'd appreciate it.

• Blocking admin has been notified: [40]
• Unblock if he says he will strike the violation, not that he likely would have. nableezy - 19:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• And since he's now said he will, unblock. Preventative and not punitive and all that jazz. I think he is now well aware of the scope of the ban and we can continue on our merry way. nableezy - 00:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• It rather beggars belief that a lawyer would not check the terms of his topic ban, but if the target of the breach agrees that he should be unblocked if he strikes the violation, then who am I to disagree? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would uphold the block. Debresser was topic banned from the area due to his wikilawyering. This is just an extension of it and an attempt to fly as close to the sun as possible. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• It was a clear violation. The correct course of action would of been to give them a chance to correct themselves given this was the first violation. That was not done which is unfortunate. Next is the issue of block length, two weeks for a first violation with no time to self revert is rather ridiculous if I'm honest. What is rather disappointing is right after blocking Cullen decided it would be a good idea to vote in the same thread opposing Debresser. Bad optics or not, it was a dumb idea. It just looks like a poorly thought out situation all around and I think apologies are in order all around. PackMecEng (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • PackMecEng, you are describing the sequence of events incorrectly. I opposed a topic ban on Nableezy at 00:30 or 00:31. I had not edited for a few hours, and before making that comment, I was researching the situation, which had nothing to do with Debresser. I was unaware that Debresser had even commented. After I posted my comment, I skimmed other recent comments, noticed Debresser's comment, reviewed their topic ban and their lengthy block log, and at that point decided to block. Describing this as Debresser's first violation does not seem accurate to me. Debresser has had five previous arbitration enforcement blocks, including one for a topic ban violation on August 2, 2017, and a dozen other assorted blocks. I do not understand how taking a position on an issue that did not involve Debresser in any way disqualified me from dealing with his topic ban violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Cullen328, I do not understand how taking a position on an issue that did not involve Debresser in any way disqualified me from dealing with his topic ban violation. That is really the problem isn't it. If you read over my comment no where did I say it disqualified you. I said Bad optics or not, it was a dumb idea. You seem to be taking issue with this from a technical standpoint which is fine, but means you are completely missing the point myself and others have brought up. Which was it is not a bright idea. Just because you can does not mean you should. Lets avoid playing "who can piss closest to the electric fence" okay? PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I am in complete and total disagreement with your assessment of the situation, PackMecEng, and your colorful language is not helpful, as I see the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        Cullen328, Well I am in complete and total disagreement with your assessment. So agree to disagree? Also the language is designed to punctuate the shortcomings with your ideals in this situation and for just general fun. PackMecEng (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        Perhaps a focus on the actual facts rather than fun would lead to a better outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        Why not both? We have fun and you learn something. Win win. PackMecEng (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        PackMecEng, I see nothing wrong with the optics here, but if it makes you feel better imagine it's my name in the log and not Cullen's. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        HJ Mitchell, Ah yes, perfect! Why didn't I do that from the start? Oh, yeah because that is silly and makes no difference to the issue at hand. I mean if you couldn't see that I suppose that would be why you saw nothing wrong with the optics huh? PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a blatantly obvious topic ban violation and any admin who saw it can and should have taken action on it. And an admin voicing an opinion on a topic ban is an administrative action that very much does not make them involved in either a personal dispute or in a topic area. You can make your argument for whether or not Debresser should be unblocked, but the idea that the initial block was in any way improper or had bad optics is a non-starter. nableezy - 02:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• On the surface, this seems like a permissible block that's at the harsher end of admin discretion and I might have been inclined to say Debresser should have been given the chance to strike his comment or that the block should be reduced to time served. However, looking at Debresser's block log, this is clearly not an isolated incident and the block duration is proportionate given that we usually escalate durations for recidivism. Then I saw that the offending comment was actually advocating for topic-banning another editor from the very same area they've just been topic-banned from; even if they didn't realise that it was covered by their topic ban (which they should have; they've been around long enough to know what a standard topic ban look like and what its purpose is—namely to force an editor to disengage with a subject area), they knew this wasn't disengaging from the Israel-Palestine area in the spirit of the topic ban. For that reason I endorse the block. I would very much like to see Debresser back to being productive (away from ARBPIA) but neither they nor Wikipedia will come to any great harm if they have to sit in the sin bin for a fortnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• endorse per Mr. Mitchell. — Ched (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• It seems like Debresser is aware of why they were blocked and admitted they had a lapse in judgment. If we give Debresser the benefit of the doubt that they would have complied with the revert request had they seen it, then one might as well consider unblocking them as long as admins are convinced it won't happen again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have no real view on whether Debresser should be unblocked, but seriously, did they not consider that commenting on a WP:ARBPIA topic ban discussion when you're topic banned from WP:ARBPIA might just be a violation of that TBan? Black Kite (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any early unblock. As an editor who has a tendency to ignore talk page message for days or weeks, then not read them well even when I check them, I initially planned to support an unblock. But that was because I thought this was a very recently impose ban by an editor still unfamiliar with the details. Seeing that it was imposed nearly 2 months ago [41], this thinking goes out the window. Sorry but it's the onus is on you to learn the details of any sanction imposed. 2 months is more than enough time for you to learn and to check if you're unsure. (Even if I had done this myself, I'd like to think I'd recognise it was a fair response and my own stupidity was to blame to no appeal.) Yes it the additional burden may suck, but as always, I'm going to assume the topic ban was fair since this isn't a request to overturn it so expecting you to do that the additional burden is reasonable and gets little sympathy from me. Further, this isn't an editor inexperienced with restrictions, as the block log shows. Debresser has had more than enough time to learn they need to get serious with sanctions. The block log also suggests 2 weeks is more than justified. Again, while maybe the blocks were't over this particular topic ban, they do indicate a problem with Debresser not following policy and sanctions. Personal or site-wide, doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 12:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Meant to say "recently imposed ban on an editor still unfamiliar with the details. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sure, they could have been given the opportunity to strike the comment, but jeesh they've been here long enough to know better. Could have gone either way. But the ruling on the field should stand: admin discretion. I don't believe time served or a shortened length applies; they erred, they deal with it. 2 weeks is not at all out of the realm of appropriate. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm glad Debresser is back editing Wikipedia, because they announced that they were done with the project after I imposed this ARBPIA topic ban which was also accompanied by a 2-week block. So, that's good news. Nevertheless, something's got to give. Debresser saying they didn't read the ban message is a supremely poor defense, especially considering all it said was (in full): You are indefinitely banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the WP:ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed. In what world does one devote whole paragraphs to discussing a ban whose highlighted one-line statement isn't reviewed? No, that's too weird. Also endorse Cullen's uninvolved status in imposing the sanction. I would have gone with a month had I seen it first (was pinged to the violation, but seen it after the fact), so in that sense, Debresser got a lucky break there. El_C 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse if this was a first-time violation by someone who had little experience of editing restrictions then an unblock would be reasonable. However Debresser has a long block log including many prior blocks for arbitration enforcement, including a block for gaming the system from two months ago. Debresser should know how editing restrictions work by now, this restriction is clearly stated and uncomplicated, and the edit in question certainly wasn't in keeping with the spirit of the ban, as HJ Mitchell notes. Hut 8.5 12:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block/Oppose unblock With Debresser's history, this was remarkably lenient under the circumstances. They know how bans work. They know perfectly what the exceptions are. Personally I think given the comments above we should be talking about increasing it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the block/Oppose unblock per HJ Mitchell, et al. The basis of the appeal seems frivolous to me and ill-founded, Alright, silly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the block/oppose unblock. Debresser's explanation that they didn't read the talk page message from January 21 is simply not credible. Debresser commented several times in the talk page discussion regarding the notification about that topic ban, User talk:Debresser#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, on January 21 and January 29. Pleading ignorance about the content of the topic ban now does not hold water. Given Debresser's long block history and long history of arbitration enforcement sanctions and their violations, a two week block in this instance was rather lenient. Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse the block/oppose unblock per Nil Einne's comments. NightWolf¹²²³ 23:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Debresser. Just a word of advice, perhaps unwelcome coming from me. Whatever one's personal feelings, whatever injustices one might think wrought by a sanction, the best approach is to wear the penalty, not remonstrate with arbs or the system. In the hightide of my banning days, I just sat them out - from permaban, to a normal 1 to 3 month ostracism to porridge. That length was normal in the good old days. Two weeks flies by, and it will go to your credit if you just sit this brief one out. And do come back.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse the block he was blocked for two weeks very recently for similar actions, this block should have been increased, he is lucky it is only two weeks again. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the block/Oppose unblock per HJ Mitchell - I guess they've learned the hard way that the topic ban also applies to AN. Striking is pointless as the damage has already been done - You live and you learn and anyway 2 weeks is nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

create

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

---

blank category sends me to article wizard, article wizard sends me here.

Please create Category:Last known speakers of a Native American language with

{{portal|language}}
[[Category:Last known speakers of a language]]

thanks. 71.223.52.67 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The correct page is WP:AFCRC; it also asks for a few pages that will be in the category. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

74.133.15.132

74.133.15.132 needs an IP range block for continual spam edits. ɱ (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ɱ, can you provide an example range or individual IP addresses that should be encompassed by the block? I'm afraid the proposed rangeblock would be huge, really huge, and pretty ineffective in terms of blocking many disruptive edits over time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with specifics; whatever you think is best, even if just for this single IP. ɱ (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Special:Contributions/74.133.15.132/24, I'd say Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I see three recent edits from this IP. One, from January, is vandalism, and the other two are at least arguably good faith. Where are you seeing the spam problems? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No log to record non-AE restriction violations

Should there not be something like WP:AEL for WP:EDRC (and for Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary), so that an enforcement record can be easily accessible? El_C 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

When I gave JazzClam a 2-week {{uw-cserblock}} earlier today, I was thinking: if this was set up like AEL (without a table), I'd likewise just note the block in an indented bulletpoint below the original sanction. I guess the block log records this well enough, but it does preclude logging a warning, for example. El_C 20:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and also that could serve as a central record of the sanctions themselves, and show which ones are still trouble spots. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, it's never really been too pressing of an issue because RESTRICT violations are so much more infrequent than AE ones...? Still, I'd support a log setup for best recordkeeping practices. Less chance of repeat violations falling through the cracks that way. El_C 04:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess there isn't much interest in setting up a RESTRICT log, after all. Oh well.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks for the support, though, Seraphimblade. El_C 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: maybe leave this open a bit longer? I support it, just haven't had time to respond. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please block these active sockpuppets

• Special:Contributions/HistoryofHumann - blocked on Wikimedia Commons[42]
• Special:Contributions/TurkicHeritage - blocked on Wikimedia Commons[43]

Both are confirmed sockpuppets[44] of already blocked Special:Contributions/Matreeks. Thanks. Wario-Man ^talk 15:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cinema for Peace

Cinema for Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cinema for Peace Foundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I am very uncertain as to what I should do with this particular edit, and wanted to request admin guidance. If it's not the proper place to raise this issue please do let me know.

This is an edit by the Cinema for Peace Foundation about Cinema for Peace, alleging that a particular section in the article is libellous (They clearly constitute libel to Cinema for Peace, an organization working for global peace and intercultural understanding), and therefore removing it.

I first undid this edit but then I had second thoughts and re-did it because I did not want to get accused of libel (WP:DNOLT).

Cinema for Peace Foundation has been reported to WP:UAA for having a promotional username, so I expect that a dialogue with this particular editor will not be able to take place. It has also been "served" WP:COI warnings.

Nevertheless, what should be done with this edit? Should we keep the disputed content or remove it?

I would also recommend to take a look at the article's talk page, which mentions that a number of editors are in a position of WP:COI with this particular organisation and where one of these editors refers to a Berlin court case.

JBchrch (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Their username seems to imply shared use because it is simply the name of a group. In the history of the article, there seems to have been extensive sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oslo95/Archive), so there might be a Checkuser needed here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lof for your swift action User:ToBeFree 👍. What do you think should be done with the "problematic"/potentially libellous edit? JBchrch (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This might depend on the checkuser result, if checkuser is done. Let's wait for a while. Keeping the content removed in the meantime is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious sock puppet accounts that I can confirm on the same IP. Running the range come back as a huge range with numerous users that log into and use it. There isn't much more that I can give, sorry. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, anyway. Then the softblock is probably the right approach for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, ToBeFree.--JBchrch (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch: I haven't looked into this particular article, my German-language skills and familiarity with German sources are effectively nil. In general terms though, with removals like this the questions to ask yourself are whether the content is supported by the sources used, whether the sources are reliable, and whether the content is neutrally written, and whether it's relevant/DUE to the article. If the answer to all three is 'yes', then it's usually fine to reinstate. The question of whether the source is biased is always worth thinking about, but per WP:BIASED it's not necessarily a problem to use a source with a particular political slant, so long as their factual reporting is generally reliable, and it's the factual reporting (rather than any editorial opinion) that we are relying on. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this advice, Girth Summit.--JBchrch (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove TfM links infesting {{tl}}

Someone please remove the TfM link from {{Template link}} by setting |type= to disabled. This speaks louder than words:

Nardog (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse this request. @Athaenara: maybe you can look into this (or any other admin reading). It’ll take a few seconds to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 18#Template:Tlu for whoever wondered what the heck this was about.) – Athaenara ✉ 23:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC) [my comment added after Nardog posted {{Resolved mark}} below]

 Resolved by Primefac. Nardog (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Black"

There is a dispute between at least two editors and maybe more involving the capitalization of "Black" when it is used as a proper adjective referring to a racial or ethnic group. A dispute request was filed at DRN referencing African American Vernacular English, but it is not an article content dispute and is not about African American Vernacular English. It is a content dispute that may apply to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages, because we have at least tens of thousands of biographies of such people. It is a Manual of Style dispute that should be resolved by a Request for Comments about capitalization standards. One editor is complaining that they are being hounded or harassed. I see no evidence of hounding; complaints of hounding are more common than actual hounding.

Notifying User:Generalrelative and User:BlauGraf.

I am not requesting any particular administrative action at this time except administrative awareness that this dispute, which should be resolved at WT:MOSCAPS, may call for reminders of the need for civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There was in fact a recently closed RfC on this very question that is relevant here, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Nsk92 and User:Rosguill (as closer). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not accept this resolution. The issue is one of proper English construction, and yet I am being ignored. The rules of English are clear that only proper nouns are capitalized, and black is not a proper noun. As further proof of this, white is not capitalized, ergo black cannot be as well. Asian is because Asia is a country continent, and thus a proper noun. As to harassment, my claim and evidence has been submitted, as the referenced used, Generalrelative, continues to stalk my work and try to erase my edits. - Blaugraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauGraf (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Asian is because Asia is a country...

Well, that's going to come as a big surprise to people in China, Japan, and India. --Calton | Talk 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

For those confused about the above comment, note that BlauGraf modified their initial comment almost an hour after this reply [45] while leaving no indication they had done so. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that they also changed Robert McClenon's post. BlauGraf, do not change other people's posts. This violates the talk page guidelines. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, BlackcurrantTea. I'll just ping Robert McClenon here in case he wants to restore his original comment. And while I don't want to pile on, I will note that BlauGraf also removed a comment I made on my own talk page when leaving a comment of their own: [46] A small thing in and of itself but if it's part of a larger pattern that could be a problem. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:BlackcurrantTea, User:Generalrelative. My original comment had only been ridiculing User:BlauGraf for a silly error that they compounded by trying to alter the past. I see no need at this point to restore it, but altering another editor's comment on a talk page is not a small thing in and of itself. It is fraud, and it violates far older rules than the so-called rules of English that are older than the English language. It is not a small thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Generalrelative; Robert McClenon, sorry for not pinging you. I was distracted when I posted, and simply forgot. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BlackcurrantTea - The failure to ping me is a minute thing. It was the alteration of my words that was not a small thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and the "rules of English" are descriptive, not prescriptive -- or did I overlook the existence of an International English Academy which enforces the rules? --Calton | Talk 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also a more recent discussion (from February, the RFC was from December) about how the results of the RFC should be formalized in the MOS. See: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Discussion_about_capitalisation_of_Black_(people). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Given BlauGraf's behavior and rhetoric, I'm not sure if I need to weigh in here at all. Still, perhaps against my better judgment, here goes:

This user is not being ignored, as they claim. They are in fact being treated with an abundance of WP:AGF not only by Robert McClenon but also by two members of the Arbitration Committee: [47]. I too have been treating them with WP:AGF, explaining my rationale for reverting their efforts to contravene MOS:VAR in edit summaries ([48], [49]) and on my talk page: [50]. Note too that I was not the only editor to revert them here: [51], though I was the one to leave a template warning for edit warring and a follow-up on their talk page, which have since been deleted: [52].

They have also not been ignored on the MOS talk page, where I referred them over a week ago: [53] After one final round of edit warring [54], they did finally post there on the 17th ([55]) and were offered a very patient explanation as to why they are wrong by SMcCandlish: [56]

Re. the accusation of hounding, this user appears to think that because we are active on some of the same pages it means that all of this activity comes from me watching their contribution history. I did check this history after realizing that they were edit warring over style at African-American Vernacular English and was concerned about related problems on multiple articles (an acceptable use of contrib history per WP:HOUNDING). But it was entirely coincidental that I was also involved in reverting an earlier wave of edits this user made back in January, when they were pushing the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and in other ways white-washing Nazi-related topics. For the very civil discussion we had about this back in January, see this deleted thread from their talk page: [57].

As to their stated unwillingness to accept the RfC, I will leave it to others to judge. Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be annoyed or amused or both by the assertion that "Asian" is capitalized because Asia was said to be a country. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously, we should write "irish", "zimbabwean", and "canadian", since Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Canada aren't continents. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good lord, such obvious mistakes shouldn't be the subject of extended discussion. For the record, you have it lucky in English: in French, it's a fair bit more complex - it's minuscule except when the word is explicitly referring to an ethnicity/nationality and it is a noun (so "Les Français parlent en français avec leurs amis français":"The French speak in [f]rench with their [f]rench friends")... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to be offended - Asia is a proper noun as it is a continent (and thus proper). Non-proper nouns are not capitalized. However, it is very apparent that this collective organization has seen fit to disregard the apparent rules of English construction. As for the reference that I was responded to, that is correct at its base, but fails to take into account that the response received was improper, and no one has actually accepted the fact that colors are not capitalized, where proper nouns are. However, as this seems to be something that you, collectively, are pushing, I cannot be heard.

Secondly, there is reference to an edit made on a page relating to the German Army. My family served in the Army, and I will not discuss that further, since your anti-German slant is quite apparent. I will correct a mis-statement: nothing I corrected was related to the Nazis, it was relating to the German Army. The Army may have served when the Nazis ruled, but not all soldiers were nazis, in the same way now that every American did not become a democrat when Biden was elected, and the American Army now is not the Democratic Army. Do you see the correlation?

It is quite obvious you wish to push some sort of hatred, and so I will do my best to continue to remain within my fields of expertise. I do ask that the generalrelative person be banned from editing any of my articles. His harassment has not ceased. - Blaugraf

@BlauGraf: This isn't a Wikipedia thing. You seem to have missed the general movement to capitalize Black. This New York Times article which explains it is one example, but far from the only one. Sometimes it is surprising to find out that something you thought was correct is no longer correct. I remember noticing one day that newscasters had moved from pronouncing Kiev as KEY-ev to KEEV. Similary I discovered that what I had always known as Rangoon was now generally known as Yangon. Things change. You'll get used to it. Mo Billings (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Just because a left-leaning newspaper begins to do something that is popular, doesn't make it right. The Russian Revolution was popular, as were the Nazis - and neither were right. Language does not change just because some people want it to. They have to conform to the rules, that is why we have rules. I learned this language 31 years ago when we came here from East Germany. BlauGraf (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf

Actually, language does change because some people want it to. That's exactly how language changes. I guarantee some of what you learned 31 years ago is no longer considered correct usage, but you probably just accepted those changes without any fuss. If you want to have a political argument, Wikipedia is the wrong site for it. On the other hand, if you just like dogmatic application of rules, there are several Wikiprojects were you will feel at home. Mo Billings (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Small aside to @BlauGraf: - please sign your talk page posts using four tildes (~~~~) and also ensure your signature complies with WP:SIGLINK. GiantSnowman 16:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I was doing so correctly. BlauGraf (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf

By the way, this is a capitalization and Manual of Style dispute, and ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply under the article titles and capitalization decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The short version: The RfC concluded with a clear consensus against "Black but white", both for NPOV reasons and consistency reasons, but did not come to a consensus in favor of "Black and White" over "black and white" or vice versa. So, as before the RfC, that is left to editorial judgment at a particular article. The only firm result was to not use one capitalized and the other not, in the same article/category/list/context (see MOS:ARTCON, WP:CONSISTENT).

The main argument for capitalizing both is that they are serving the function of proper names, as demonyms. The main argument for lower-casing is that they are not consistently capitalized in contemporary reliable sources, so the first rule of MOS:CAPS (don't capitalize that which sources don't consistently capitalize) should apply. Neither of them are poor arguments, and it is often not possible for us to arrive at 100% consistency with all style guidelines, because they can sometimes produce "conflicting consistencies", as it were (in this case, consistency with proper naming vs. consistency with lower-casing when in doubt). I will note that MOS:TM would not allow us to lower-case a trademark (a proper name) like "Macy's" to match its logo (which looks like "macy^★s") just because the company liked it that way. I.e., the interaction of MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS is to go with the upper-case consistency of proper names in English, not with the lower-casing consistency of "things not always capitalized in sources". But the proper-name argument about ethno-racial "color labels" isn't as strong as it is with regard to trademarks. In the end, we may simply need to add "(sometimes capitalized)" to the lead of the article on the term, if we're generally treating it lower-case, or "(sometimes not capitalized)" if the other way around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: The claim that there's a general trend across English to capitalize "Black", in isolation, is simply not true. Associated Press Stylebook does this, so various US newspapers that follow it also do so. Some others have independently started doing it, too. However, The Washington Post capitalizes "Black" and "White", as do various others (some of which have been doing so since at least the 1980s). And yet others are sticking with lower-case across the board, especially non-US publications. Of those that use "Black but white", the vast majority of them are American. The style is an Americanism, a recentism, and a leftism all at once. This is not a new question/debate, it's simply become a louder one over the last year, and one that is not any closer to resolution than it was a generation ago. Probably further from resolution, actually, because the growing trend to capitalize both has been somewhat upset by sudden activism to capitalize only one of them. That it is socio-political activism (i.e., a WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problem) is immediately apparent from the statements issued by the news organizations that chose to go with "Black but white" and put out a statement about it. Anyway, all of this is just rehash, since it all already covered in detail at the RfC and discussion surrounding it.

To the extent there's an administrative matter: Blaugraf should be warned away from making WP:GREATWRONGS-style arguments about what "is" "correct" in English (which has no official rules or rule-making body, unlike continental French and Spanish). How to write English on Wikipedia is determined by consensus in the MoS guidelines; it's why they exist. Personal dissatisfaction with a line-item in it here in there is something everyone at WP lives with (0% of editors agree with 100% of it, or any other guideline or policy for that matter). The last time we had someone pursuing this kind of "English must be written the way I say it must" stuff about an MoS matter, it led to a great deal of disruption, then a topic-ban, then a broader t-ban, then a block, then an indefinite block (mostly via WP:AE). Let's not go there again. But others involved need to be pointed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded. An WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude is not a rationale; have a discussion on the talk page about whether to use "black" or "Black" in that context (the the RfC result is a consensus that either are permissible, if used consistently), and remember that if it's "Black" then it also means using "White", and "black" means using "white" (in the ethno-racial senses). If anyone seems hellbent on editwarring and other disruption, leave {{subst:Ds/alert|mos}} on their talk page, and thereafter it can be more expediently addressed at AE, if it continues.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish - Thank you for explaining that the reason for capitalizing Black and White is that they are being used as demonyms, and that whether that is "correct" or "incorrect" is outside the scope of this discussion. (But dishonestly altering a talk page post is not outside the scope of this discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the last part refers to; there're probably aspects of this disputation that I've glossed over. I should be clear that I advocated at least mildly in the original RfC on this to prefer "Black and White", relying on the demonym rationale. I see that rationale in play across the site regularly. E.g., while I was editing animal breed articles, as is my wont, and going over the Florida Cracker cattle and Florida Cracker Horse articles in particular (which have different capitalization because of what the formal name of the standardized breed is, i.e., does it or does it not include the species word at the end?), and I noticed that Florida cracker, the article on the human [sub]culture namesake, was not capitalizing cracker. This stuck me as weird. (More on that in a moment.) Looking around further, I see that many similar epithets are capitalized. E.g., Kiwi for New Zealander is usually capitalized, as just one example. Another is that Coloured, in the southern African mixed-race ethnic sense, is almost universally capitalized. The more I look, the more I see a norm toward capitalization of such informal demonyms. Though in the course of looking, I do also come across additional exception like the cracker case. However, even that is not consistent and doesn't seem to represent a consensus. At the closely related Georgia cracker article, it's obvious that this was originally written capitalized (most of the article still is) then later moved to lower-case by someone, without any apparent discussion (there is no RM thread about this at either Talk:Florida cracker or Talk:Georgia cracker). This overall "capitalize them as (or serving as if) proper names" trend is why I've drafted language for MoS to this effect, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Overhauling MOS:CAPS#Peoples and their languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability of awards

In other Wiki articles about celebrities, either the award is notable or not, we users put it in the awards and nominations section of a celebrity's article. But in the case of Charlie Dizon, the creator of the said article, Carl Francis removed my edit about a latest award that the said actress has won because the said award giving body is non-notable. The question is that all awards that the celebrities had won or included due to nomination be included or not and why? I reverted his edit back and putted there a valid source. I don't know if his recent edit falls in WP:AFG and violates WP:Notability (awards). Thank you! Jayjay2020 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the edit of the said user: [58] and this is my recent edit: [59]

Wikipedia is not "Wiki", and AN is not the place to settle content disputes. Discuss it on the article talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, utilize the dispute resolution process to get the opinions of previously uninvolved editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I have transferred the issue to dispute resolution, in WP:DRN#Charlie Dizon. Jayjay2020 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean...you can do that, and that's a bit better, but if someone disagrees with an edit you made, generally the first step is just to head to the article talk page and ask "Hey, why did you disagree with that?", and then talk it over with them. You can always go to other DR steps later if that discussion comes to an impasse, but skipping that step is kind of bad form. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: I just want to update you that I have raised it in the talk page of the article. I will wait for the user's reply. Jayjay2020 (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Closed at DRN also due to lack of prior article talk page discussion. Sometimes a rule to discuss at the article talk page first means to discuss at the article talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 18 needs repair work

Something is badly broken on this page, I suspect from all the "X Lock" discussions, each of which lists all the others. At any rate, I couldn't figure out what to do to fix it. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mangoe: I noticed the same thing. I tried a couple of things and was pointed to WP:PEIS. In layman's terms the number of template transclusions went over the limit. I'm almost positive this was caused by the large number of lock nominations. Not sure how often this happens at AfD but there is the explanation. I'll leave it up to the admins to figure out what to do if anything. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. Most broken I've ever seen that page. It's basically useless for me. Closing the locks as WP:TRAINWRECK, then <no include/> ing them and instructing the nominator to stick to a more reasonable number per day might work. I struggle to see how !voters will be able to process all of those lock AFDs on a single day. It's super late where I am, so someone else would have to go through that process if it's deemed a reasonable one. Hog Farm _Talk 06:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, as the preview says explicitly, is that Template include size is too large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.13.136 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

They are separate, it's just that each discussion has templates linking to the other discussion pages. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the page is broken and something needs fixed. We're likely going to have to either remove or <no include> some of the transclusions; the linking to each other within the AFDs may be a place to start. Hog Farm _Talk 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to comment those "also listing" sections out, unless someone objects. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a load more because the log page was broken again. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Subpages deletion

Please delete my subpages that are redirected to published articles. If this is not the right platform to make such requests then tell me where I should do that in future. There are many pages that is why I haven't tagged them for deletion individually. Thanks and regards.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It is better, actually, to tag each one for deletion. Since they're in your userspace, just place {{db-u1}} on the subpages you'd like deleted. It's okay to do a lot of pages that way; plenty of people before you have requested U1 deletion of a good number of subpages. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, as it's easy enough to dbatch when a list and request is provided. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac!--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Idiots picking on me again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:104.218.36.228&diff=cur

All these idiots are doing by their behavior is running off everybody outside their little cliques and further entrenching themselves and Wikipedia as a whole into the realm of `infotainment' into which it has been relegated by any serious research institution for several years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.36.228 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@104.218.36.228: It's critical to notify individuals you are talking about that the discussion exists by noting it on their talk pages. I've let Saadrafiq4 know, but I don't know how broadly you are talking about "idiots" (itself not a word choice likely to aid your case). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@104.218.36.228: Hi, I presume you're talking about this revert of mine. I have recently started recent changes patrolling. You did not provide an edit summary, and reading the edit you made, I couldn't make out the context and honestly thought it was vandalism. If it wasn't, you could redo the edits changing the words so they are clear in the context while providing an edit summary, or talk about it on my talk page. I can make mistakes too, although I try my best to remain constructive and make Wikipedia better. — Saadrafiq4 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• On the one hand Nosebagbear is exactly right, in fact considering the link you dropped, many folks would consider it a personal attack (please do read through that).
  On the other hand, a "Warning" such as "BZZZTTTTT! Wrong answer. Issue escalated to supervisor/admin. Thanks for playing." isn't particularly welcoming or collaborative either.
  and lastly while an edit summary is always preferred, it's not required. (and adding you sig to talk posts is even more preferable than not signing). I don't really see anything actionable here, and think this could likely be closed, but since I've commented, I'll leave that to someone else. — Ched (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC) edited

Ched, look carefully: that message was this IP's response to the warning, not Saad's warning itself, even though it was posted above the latter for whatever reason. Their other replies on their talk page are similarly hostile. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 10:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, Ahhh - you're right. I'll strike some of my comment. My apologies to Saadrafiq4. Thank you M Imtiaz for pointing that out. — Ched (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP seems to have major problems collaborating. For example, these responses [60] [61] are clearly inappropriate. But they're especially stupid since there is nothing to fix. A review of the dispute shows [62] that the link was already correctly marked as dead, so the archive took over as the primary link. There was no need for any further maintenance, someone already fixed it. Probably User:CLCStudent could have better explained this but frankly after the first reply, it's not that surprising no one bothered. CLCStudent had their own problems anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The dispute which seems to have set off this thread is another one where the actions they're complaining about seem fair enough. Saadrafiq4 is right that it's difficult to parse their addition [63]. Who is this 'man who did die from AIDS' who 'was an early inspiration'? The IP offers no sources, no any inkling on who this man was or at least how he was an inspiration. I would note the sentence after the next sentence mentions 'David Grant was reported to have suggested the name "Daddy Bear" for this new magazine just before his death from complications from AIDS'. If David Grant is the man the IP is referring to, then the IP's addition is clearly unhelpful. We already better explain David Grant's role 2 sentences away, mentioning some weird fragment in that sentence isn't helpful. If this man is someone else, then the David Grant example shows how the information can be meaningfully integrated into the paragraph, by explaining his role and maybe also mentioning his name. Just saying some random person died of AIDS and 'was an early inspiration' is not particularly useful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Justa (rebel)

Hi! An IP is completely changing the content of this page, going so far as to edit Wikidata in the process. Could someone restore it to its original state and semi-protect it for some days/weeks? Thanks! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if a partial rangeblock will hit the spot. El_C 12:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed tags by IPs in WikiProject University of Oxford

We have an unusual tagging activity from IP (See Citation needed tags). I could not find a good way to warn those IPs that look like one person. Can an admin help out? --Anneyh (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

My notes an IP editor had a dispute about the University of Oxford on 10 March and has been going through Oxford articles since then and tagging any unreferenced content they can find and also removing old unreferenced content. They have also PRODed and AfDed several Oxford articles. Many of the edits are fine in isolation but tagging content as a result of a dispute is disruptive.

• Template talk:University of Oxford#Deletion original dispute about what to include on a template
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford#Recent citation needed tags description of problem, list of IP accounts
• User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:2463:E460:6C60:88D9#Recent citation needed tags attempt to contact editor before I realised the context TSventon (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the problem that needs admin intervention. There's certainly no justification for blocking an editor for removing unsourced content just because they use a dynamic IP. See User_talk:Assem_Khidhr#Revert for some recent discussion. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't have time to properly assess the edits here and judge whether anything needs urgently blocking, but for the assistance of other admins I'd point out that this user is completely covered by a /64 range 2603:7000:2143:8500:0:0:0:0/64, which tallies just fine with normal use from an ISP that's using IPv6. If a rangeblock does become required, that range should hit this user and only this user, though the rapid changes to the end of the IP address should not be taken in itself as any evidence of bad faith. ~ mazca ^talk 13:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? Tagging any unreferenced content they can find and also removing old unreferenced content is called improving the encyclopaedia, not disruptive editing. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• My concern is the editor is only editing Oxford articles to pursue a dispute. Their talk page contributions seem to have a battleground mentality, especially the original dispute. They are tagging articles indiscriminately, e.g. all 39 college articles, rather than drawing attention to the worst referenced articles, so I don't think their focus was improving the encyclopedia. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that the edits are being done to pursue a dispute, but it's not obvious to me what could or should be done about that. Certainly much of the tagging is indiscriminate, being done in a drive by fashion, with no attempt whatsoever to fix issues before tagging them, but in general the IP is at least vaguely accurately identifying statements which (while mostly true) are not well sourced inline, and beyond a few tags on obviously WP:BLUE statements little of it could be considered genuinely disruptive. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was/am hoping to convince an admin that some or all of my concerns are justified and then for the admin to explain the same to the IP editor. Hopefully a block would not be needed. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

125.162.23.248

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

---

Admin action needed on User talk:125.162.23.248, who has made purely disruptive edits on multiple articles. Morgan695 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Just strolling on by but I'm not seeing anything at a glance that warrants admin intervention at a glance. The IP will either heed the warnings or end up at WP:AIV. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mirisa56

This users has a relatively long history in Wikipedia in English but does not seems to improve with time. There is a lot of warnings of deletion for articles or text, for different reasons including copy-paste or website, in his discussion page but he continues to input without regards for these warnings and never answer to queries about his editions. I don't know if an administrator could have a look on his work or give me advice of what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre cb (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations. I'll leave cleaning the revision mess to the next reader. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed most of the copyright violations and cleaned up most of the styling issues and such. It definitely needs another go-over regarding the qualifications, salary, and stuff with the FAA, NOAA. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've cleaned anything left over. Let me know if I missed something. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Review requested: I have blocked Mathsci for three months for IBAN violation

In June, 2018 User:Francis Schonken (hereafter referred to as "FS") and User:Mathsci were placed under a WP:IBAN restriction with each other (see the discussion and its closure). This IBAN remains active (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community). Since the institution of this IBAN, Mathsci has received the following blocks for violating it:

1. 6 November 2020 block log entry by User:Floquenbeam: This was an indefinite ban from User talk:Francis Schonken for Mathsci making a series of edits to FS' talk page [64][65][66][67] This block was removed by the blocking admin after assurances were given by Mathsci that they would never post to FS' talk page again. Mathsci has upheld that promise. See AN/I discussion regarding this incident.
2. 9 November 2020 block log entry by User:NinjaRobotPirate: This was a 1 week site block resulting from the above 6 November 2020 incident. See also User talk:Mathsci#November 2020
3. 3 February 2021 block log entry by User:El C: This was a 1 month site block. See User talk:Mathsci#Block. An unblock request for this block was denied by User:JBW.

On 17 March 2021, Mathsci made this edit which made direct reference to this edit by FS. WP:IBAN notes "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;" This edit by Mathsci was in my opinion a clear violation of the IBAN, as it directly commented on an edit by FS. I raised issue with this on Mathsci's talk page, and gave a very sternly worded final warning to Mathsci regarding violating the IBAN. See discussion on Mathsci's talk page. In that final warning, I warned Mathsci that any further violations would result in a three month block.

Today at 04:25 UTC, FS made this edit that added a {{nowrap}} to two locations in a translation. At 05:03 UTC today (less than an hour later), Mathsci commented out the {{nowrap}}s placed by FS. WP:IBAN notes "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" This edit by Mathsci is, in my opinion, an unequivocal bright line violation of the IBAN.

Accordingly, and per the final warning I noted above, I have blocked Mathsci for three months for violating the IBAN [68]. I invite feedback from other administrators regarding this block and my handling of the situation. If another administrator feels the block is inappropriate they are welcome to shorten or eliminate the block if they feel it necessary to do so without further consultation with me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it may be time for an indef. Disruptive editing has gone on for a long time despite several warnings and blocks. Good block. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  As I've pointed out on Mathsci's TP, FS should also/instead get blocked - he's also on a similarly sliding slope of seemingly unending disruption with Mathsci AND other editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have placed a warning on FS' talk page at User talk:Francis Schonken#WP:IBAN violation regarding the IBAN violation. Whether or not FS made an edit that affected Mathsci's edit is no excuse for Mathsci to effectively revert FS' edit. WP:IBAN makes no allowances for such cases. I have not blocked FS for this incident. However, I don't think blocking FS for it would be entirely inappropriate either. There's a narrow window within the IBAN policy that could be construed as allowing the edit, as FS' edit [69] did not undo Mathsci's edit [70], whereas Mathsci's edit [71] clearly undid FS' [72]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've ne'er been a big fan of technicalities. For background (for others) Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music. Also, I don't think we should be extending "benefit of doubt" to established editors over technicalities - they should know better; and it's not like the problem between FS and Mathsci is something that begun today (and also per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). FS also seems to have a propensity for, exactly, arguing technicalities: saying that this somehow isn't a "content fork" while it's basically a slightly modified copy of this is very much too close, to my taste, to something like WP:WIKILAWYERING... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without seeming to be ominous (I'm not), FS' actions are not going without notice. It is important to understand that FS' actions are irrespective of Mathsci's. Mathsci isn't responsible for FS' actions nor vice versa. If one or both violate policies, guidelines, or sanctions, I am confident appropriate actions will be taken. I believe in this case that Mathsci's actions created a bright line, unequivocal violation of the IBAN with FS. This is why I took the action that I did. FS' actions do not provide an excuse under which Mathsci can act. WP:IBAN isn't written that way, nor should it be. If it were, it would create a situation where edit warring was accepted under an IBAN so long as the person who did it was under the IBAN with the person with whom they were edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a perennial problem, with those two, yes, but also with the IBAN model itself, overall, especially when it involves a relatively narrow scope of articles, where the IABAN'd editors are therefore more likely to meet (if not greet). Recently seen the acrimony it still didn't prevent from rising to the fore with the Newimpartial and the now indeffed Lilipo25 IBAN, for example. But how to get around that challenge?

To that: a few years back, I tried to account for that problematic with a custom DS (GMO) IBAN for Tryptofish and SashiRolls, which also added a 2nd-edit page prohibition (which ended up giving Tryptofish a huge advantage, since they began editing many of the affected pages first). The sanction was overturned soon thereafter, anyway, for unrelated reasons (of which I am largely unfamiliar with to this day), or rather, converted into a normal IBAN, but one-way against SR. Anyway, regardless, in hindsight, I later recognized that this custom page-level IBAN was a poorly-formed idea on my part. Sorry, this is probably not helping much. In any case, it's a conundrum. El_C 20:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that an IBAN is an effective tool in situations such as this. Both FS and Mathsci are heavily involved in classical music areas of interest on the project. They are dancing on the same floor in close proximity to each other. They are going to bump into each other and cause an IBAN violation. My concern with this incident is that Mathsci's edit came so close on the heels of FS' edit, and clearly undid what FS has done. I can't think that was anything other than intentional. I also do not think that a topic ban would work in this case either. I'm open to suggestions on what we could do instead in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that in this case the IBAN is showing itself to be very much de facto ineffective. Short of the almighty Banhammer, a topic ban would be the logical next step (even if that would mean we'd lose 2 valuable contributors in an area - then again WP:UNBLOCKABLES); but then this has been going on for far too long... A real conundrum, as El C states. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As Hammersoft noted, when the editors in question have been utterly ignoring their IBAN as though it never existed, there's no reason to expect that a TBAN would be treated any differently. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

At least a TBAN has much less grey areas. "Classical music (in the usual broad [common practice era, c. 1600-20th century; if we need to extend to include contemporary music why not] or even in a very broad [all of documented Western music, from the middle ages to the present day] sense), broadly construed" is much harder to claim technicalities than "technically didn't alter the other's edits". Then if we have further ignoring of sanctions, the outcome is predictable... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• endorse block regrettable but inevitable. We need the expertise, but not at the price of the melodrama. No call on whether FS should be blocked as well. I wish people who have so much to offer could get along and not fight. What a waste. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• endorse (Non-administrator comment) very regrettably as per DFO, but this seems to be correct enforcement of an interaction ban (even if it was on a minor, if clear cut, infraction) and there's no sign that further disruptive behaviour between these two editors which we're trying to prevent would stop at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Pianissimo At their recent RfA, Hammersoft said that their username was an "intentional oxymoron. Imagine lightly tapping with a hammer...". But a three-month block from all of Wikipedia seems to be quite a heavy blow. Please consider that there is now an option to make a partial block and this seems to be appropriate when editors are treading on each other's toes in particular places. In this case, Mathsci was breathing down FS's neck at Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. Why not give Mathsci an indefinite block from that article alone? If they should seem to follow FS to another such article then block them from that one too and so on. If the parties observe a creeping limitation of their access to such articles, then they may learn to be more circumspect. See also proportionality. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  We have been proportional. The community should not need to mollycoddle editors who want to edit here. Mathsci has already had lots of chances and warnings. They've already gone through a series of escalating blocks and found their editing completely restricted for periods, but seem to have failed to learn anything from it. So frankly it's getting to the stage where it's becoming apparent they seem incapable of learning "to be more circumspect" and there's definitely zero reason to think partial blocks will do it. Partial blocks are useful, and perhaps if there was no previous iban violations, a partial block from one article and maybe its talk page would be a good way to try and deal with the problem instead of a 24 hour block or whatever. But it's ridiculous to suggest an ever expanding list of partial blocks because an editor refuses to be serious with their iban. If an editor can't resist the urge to poke another editor even when we've told them in no uncertain terms they need to resist, they can fuck off, no matter how good their general work is. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: It is indeed a heavy blow, and one I didn't want to take. I tried very hard to avoid it. Please see this thread, where a final warning was given for something that other administrators likely would have blocked Mathsci but I chose instead to warn for, with a custom written personal warning. This block was preceded by other blocks for violations of the IBAN and other infractions of the IBAN. The message is not getting through. If lightly tapping the hammer isn't getting through, heavier blows might. This is the action that I've taken. To continue your musical analogy (which seems apropos, given the subject area in which Mathsci and FS work), we were at pianissimo years ago, before the IBAN was put in place. With all the disputes that happened around that, we reached mezzo piano before the IBAN. At the IBAN institution, we reached mezzo forte. With the block this past November, we were at double forte. With the month long block in February, we were at triple forte. We're now in what I've heard some brass players like to say as "blow their ears off" territory that would make Tchaikovsky proud. I've suggested, and pinged you to, your alternative for partial blocks to Mathsci. If Mathsci is amenable, I will start a sub-thread here to seek community input on what would be a novel sanction (so far as I'm aware). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Unban request for Bigshowandkane64

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

---

Bigshowandkane64 is banned by community consensus, with a substantial number of suspected and confirmed sockpuppet accounts, visible at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bigshowandkane64 and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bigshowandkane64. The SPI case is visible at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64/Archive and shows no entries after 19 March 2018. Note that there's been ban evasion as an IP address, over at User_talk:JBW#Apology_message, and SQL indicates there's been ban evasion using an account, since that time, but this is disputed by Bigshowandkane64. This user is requesting their ban be lifted, so I am copying over their appeal from their talk page.

I know it's been eight years since I last used this account, I was wondering if I could have one more final chance to edit on Wikipedia again. I wrote and apology talk page message to JBW on his talk page and he was able to restore my talk page access again. He told me to post here instead of his talk page, which I will gladly accept to do. Anyways, I sincerely apologize for my past behavior on this site eight years ago, I apologize to all the admins for cursing and swearing at them in the past, especially in my edit summaries when I use to edit articles. I know what I did before was wrong, I just didn't know better back then and I was very young then. I have reed the entire policy and I will be looking forward into changing my ways again when I edit the site, I will not create anymore sock puppet accounts like I did before in the past, I promise not to argue or edit war against users when I edit again. If an edit war starts to happen, I will ALWAYS take the issuse to the talk page instead of arguing with someone. This time, I am gonna be very cautious when I edit again. I will be very carful to not let the same mistake happen again like it did eight years ago. Please forgive me, I am being very apologetic to you all and I will show you guys that I am gonna follow the policy when I edit again. It's ok if this unblock request gets declined again, I just wanted to let every admin on here know that I am very, very, VERY, sorry. I swear, I have not used another account to edit articles for the past three years, as you mention. Since March 2018, I have NOT, I repeat, I have NOT created another account since then. SQL is wrongfully accusing me of another IP Address user, because I don't remember doing all that to other users, that is 100% not true. Plus, I haven't even invaded a block since 2018, I only used an IP Address to write an Apology message to JBW, that's all. Like I said before, I will be changing my ways again when I start editing articles again. I'm letting you all know that I sincerely apologize for my mistakes in the past eight years ago. But I am telling you, I am being wrongfully accused of another IP Address user. Plus, I seriously don't remember creating another account to invade my block before recently. Again, like I said, it's ok if this request gets declined. I'm just letting everyone know I'm sorry about my mistakes eight years ago.

I take no position on whether or not they've evaded their block using an account, and take no position at this time on whether or not their ban should be lifted. What does the community think? --Yamla (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that the user was originally banned in Archive265. --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of rehabilitation is being open and honest about the past. If he cannot recall fairly recent socking, then I don't think he's changed. That is then a dishonest remark. --Heymid (contribs) 13:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose unban. Bluntly stated, I do not believe this user. I don't know if they can't change or if they won't change. IMO that distinction is irrelevant at this point. Tiderolls 13:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Snow close, strong oppose. Over at User talk:Bigshowandkane64, they admitted to evading their block a few minutes ago with this edit and this edit. I'm therefore pretty sure SQL was right when they noted other instances of evasion, too. Given the ongoing evasion, I see absolutely no chance this unban request will be granted. Bigshowandkane64, you should go at least six months with zero edits before your next attempt to be unbanned. At that point, sign in to your account and use your talk page or, if your access has been revoked, use WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per talk page - I'm not quite sure how they could accidentally edit. They knew they were banned, so why would they be pressing "edit" anyway? Can't see any reason they would lose their TP access, but SO reset would be the standard response. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• I've emailed Yamla the evidence that Bigshowandkane64 was socking recently, so that they may investigate it independently. I stand by my assertion that they were socking at the very same time that they were leaving the 'apology message' at JBW's talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 15:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Meh. FWIW, I've edited not logged in and not realized the software had logged me out. But if they edit edother than their talk page, they should have known that would not have happened. @SQL: I'm not a checkuser (else I'd have access to the logs). Is there anything you can email me. I've signed WMF confidentiality agreement. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is somewhere between  Highly likely and  Confirmed to SuperMariokart9876. I'm going with confirmed, in this case, based on what I see in the technical evidence. I've reblocked and tagged. So, block evasion while logged out, alongside setting up an account and editing with that. --Yamla (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup. This user isn't coming out as trustworthy. Part of becoming unblocked and showing change is to abide by policies, in this case WP:SOCK. With their ban evasion they show no intention of behaving appropriately here. The fact that they could press the edit button without impediment while logged out isn't an excuse. If you know you're banned, you know you aren't allowed to edit under any circumstances. Seems more likely that the user deliberately logged out so they could edit. --Heymid (contribs) 17:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for deletion

Can an admin go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Australian_Christian_College_-_Singleton_Crest.png&action=delete to delete the page?

I am asking here because simply visiting File:Australian Christian College - Singleton Crest.png does not work as expected (you won't even see the CSD G6 template I just added there) because it also exists on Commons. Going straight to the deletion page will probably work. See File page exists locally on enwiki but only Commons content is shown and no edit link is available on Phabricator for details. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I edit again? I have this account that was banned for 6 months for socks: Fajkfnjsak

Hi, I have the account Fajkfnjsak. I had that account and sock accounts but I dont have the password to any of those accounts as I just used them as throwaways at the time, so I made this new account to start over. About 1 year ago I was banned for using socks and my wiki page said I was banned for 6 months and gave me the date that the ban would end. 6 months ago, once the ban ended, I started over with a new account because I didn’t have any of the old passwords and begun to edit again. An admin then told me that counts as socking because I didn’t first identify myself as Fajkfnjsak. I said I didn’t know that I had to, I thought I could just move on, but the admin said that it counted as socking again and banned me again. Once again the wiki page said I was banned for 6 months and again gave me a date where I would could return to edit. I am clear on the sock rules (socks are never allowed) and I will not create any other accounts. I wanted to make sure I am in the clear to edit this time, so can I edit again?