{{vandal|Dennisprosus}} has removed criticism from [[Prosus]] and its subsidiary [[OLX]]. Their edits have previously been reverted at Prosus by {{ping|Edwardx}} who also observed a likely COI. Not sure if their username which includes the company name violates [[WP:USERNAME]], in either case, COI, removing referenced information, etc. could use some scrutiny. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 09:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
{{vandal|Dennisprosus}} has removed criticism from [[Prosus]] and its subsidiary [[OLX]]. Their edits have previously been reverted at Prosus by {{ping|Edwardx}} who also observed a likely COI. Not sure if their username which includes the company name violates [[WP:USERNAME]], in either case, COI, removing referenced information, etc. could use some scrutiny. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 09:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
== IP Global Block Request ==
== IP Global Block Request ==
Block this IP Range [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.106.216.73] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.227.123.75|117.227.123.75]] ([[User talk:117.227.123.75#top|talk]]) 09:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{ping|Blablubbs}} The IP range [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:69B:E4B9:98B0:E7D3:1368:C512] you have blocked and now back during Block evasion on this IP and doing same edits see this [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.106.216.73] , Block this also. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.227.123.75|117.227.123.75]] ([[User talk:117.227.123.75#top|talk]]) 09:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Today I noticed a back-and-forth between these two editors at Geo Swan's talk page. Per the background link above, evidently Geo Swan was blocked almost a year ago for creating an article about Dan Trotta while involved in a dispute at commons with imissdisco, which claims to be Trotta's account (I have no way of confirming this). About two weeks ago Geo Swan began posting a "plan for reinstatement" to their talk page. imissdisco, who has not edited this wiki except in relation to this dispute, began to challenge various things that Geo Swan was adding to their "plan", and their conversation became hostile.
Reviewing the talk page, I came across a diatribe in which Geo Swan threatened to ping the blocking admin daily until getting a satisfactory response. Admins are required to be accountable but there is no requirement to be publicly flogged until the offended party is satisfied, particularly in this case where the blocking admin's action was already discussed by the community (background link above). As such, I revoked Geo Swan's talk page and email access, standard practice for overt threats of harassment.
I also par-blocked imissdisco from Geo Swan's talk page, given their unreasonably aggressive tone and threats of their own, because the dispute at commons that started this whole thing seems to still be ongoing and is spilling over here again, and because Geo Swan won't be able to respond anyway.
I understand that the situation between these two editors is somewhat sensitive because the deleted page I won't link to was characterized as an attack page and because one of the parties is allegedly the target of that page (in other words it began with harassment) and so I'm requesting a review of the situation and my actions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cat o'nine tails for HJ Mitchell obviously. But, seriously, that looks fine ((Non-administrator comment)), obvs); notwithstanding Geo Swan's plan for reinstatement, I would say he was more likely to be heading towards a site ban than away from it. It's a shame imissdisco has to be blocked from the talk, but they have absolutely no reason to be editing it that I can see. Although if GS is also harassing her on other wikis (did I see her say that?), that makes her ire very understandable, although not something we can address on en-wp. SN5412917:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Partial endorsement. I've been observing this for some time. It seems to me that imissdisco has been poking Geo Swan with a sharp stick. I am steering clear of the origfinal infraction. I consider, however, that all parties in a dispute are expected to conduct themselves with decorum. Perhaps the original issue was sufficient to cut the stick wielder some slack, but I wonder if the administrative action has gone far enough. My expectation is that, whatever the provocation they should avoid the talk page where they are poking with sticks. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me17:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification. HJ Mitchell is not the blocking admin. He gave a warning, and Drmies subsequently blocked. The block was overwhelmingly confirmed at a discussion here at AN [2]. Geo Swan seems to want to argue about the warning first, before requesting an unblock. I don't know if HJMitchell was even aware of the the posts: it doesn't seem required to watchlist a page almost a year after giving a warning, and the first actual ping was yesterday, I believe, though does it even work if you add a ping to previous text? In any case, Geo Swan continuing to argue that he was right, including ramping up the situation by asking for the undeletion of the contested picture at Commons (apparently in order to force Imissdisco to self-identify officially), seems very, very unlikely to convince editors to unblock him here. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geo is incapable of collegiately editing, which is a shame because he has also provided good content. I don't know the IP, but agree with them in the request that Geo's response warranted further eyes, although I don't fault anyone in opting not to. Engagement with them is unnecessarily hostile, which is why I asked them not to email me. They had talk page access and did not need to resort to off wiki communications because they believe others need to be at their beck and call. StarMississippi18:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Geo Swan is still writing about Trotta and still using the photo Trotta objected to elsewhere on the Internet as recently as this month? It seems like we're moving closer to Trust & Safety territory than an unblock. The summary Imissdisco posted at Geo Swan's talk page seems helpful. As he admits, he's not a Wikipedian and made the initial photo request without understanding how things work simply because he didn't like the photo. That's something we see every day. Yes, it can be annoying when you're oriented towards building a free knowledge resource and someone wants to remove an illustration just because they don't like it, but from the subject's standpoint it's completely reasonable. So when it wouldn't hurt much, or when there's something unusual about the case, we try to accommodate those requests. But Geo Swan went to great lengths to ensure it would never be deleted and, moreover, spread the photo to even more locations. It's wildly inappropriate, and I really don't see a way forward for Geo Swan without owning up to that, without pointing fingers, doing everything they can to undo the harassment, volunteering for a topic ban about Dan Trotta, and probably some other BLP restrictions. Given the current situation, I support the actions at the top. (And btw I'm not even saying the photo should've been deleted. It was two years old, was just a crop of a group photo that wouldn't have been deleted, and Commons errs on the side of preservation both due to its broad scope and to protect anyone who may have used that photo outside of Wikimedia projects and is counting on Commons documenting the license.) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I participated at GeoSwan's talk page, but my advice was not taken. As I wrote there, he's an amazing editor and I hope he can eventually get over himself and be allowed to return here. In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages, so I hope we can avoid ourselves doubling down here, and at least avoid removing that; he's not doing a very good job of advocating for his return, but he is trying. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages In the immediate aftermath of the block, yes. Not almost a year later.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong deleted article, but the last deleted article of GS doesn't look like an attack to the naked eye. imissdisco did look like they were wholesale deleting sections they didn't like. What about it is attack? What am I missing? Dennis Brown - 2¢01:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was created for the purpose of bothering the BLP subject, while the GeoSwan was actively arguing with and insulting the subject on Commons. GeoSwan said ahead of time that it would be a dick move to create the article, and did so anyway. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but blocks are for behavior and not content. The act of using the creation of an article as a weapon against another user is certainly a novel way to attack them, but it's still an unreasonable thing to do. --Jayron3213:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support any block or ban of Geo Swan that we have the power on en.wiki to implement or endorse. A year later, Geo Swan is still acting in an emotionally reactionary way, unable to control their temper in the way that I would expect a Wikipedian to be able to do were the incident something that happened yesterday, and making threats of harassment (to HJ Mitchell). They display no understanding of why they were blocked, and Imissdisco (whose comments are quite tame) alleges continued off-wiki harassment. Geo Swan says that they were drunk while committing harassment against Imissdisco, but that is a matter for more concern, not less. This is becoming a T&S matter, as Rhododendrites says.Lastly, while my condolences go to anybody who is experiencing grief, editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and we have precedent of not lifting blocks/bans that were issued after impulsive behaviour by a person experiencing serious negative life events due to the pandemic. The question here is "will this person be a net positive if unblocked?", not a question of fairness. — Bilorv (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering GeoSwan is using their Talk page to argue about the block, rather than attempting to appeal, I'd suggest revoking Talk page access & making them use UTRS. This obsession of his is getting out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support full-fledged site ban of Geo Swan, and I'd probably support a T&S ban too. I do not recall crossing paths with Geo Swan, but I do recall having a high opinion of his past work, and being shocked to find he'd been indef'd... and then disgusted after reading why. We must reject and act against any forms of harassment; Imissdisco does not deserve this treatment. If Geo Swan is still obsessing over this matter nearly a full year on from the imposition of his indefinite block, then I think we can safely say that he is no longer "here". --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban GeoSwan has been repeatedly counselled over many years for a range of BLP issues relating to their editing (e.g. creating negative articles on people for what appear to have been WP:COATRACK purposes, creating articles on non-notable people accused of terrorism, etc - see the various reports via [3], Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan and the list of articles they created which have since been deleted at [4] - most of the 708(!) are BLPs). As they are continuing problematic behaviour related to BLP while blocked for this, a ban is clearly in order given there appears to be no likelihood they will be ever adhere to the key BLP policy. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This action seems entirely appropriate to me. There have been problems with Geo Swan's editing, especially concerning BLPs, for a very long time. It should not be necessary to explain to an editor of GS's experience why weaponising Wikipedia in such a way is abhorrent, and that he still doesn't get it a year later shows that the block is clearly still necessary. His conduct on his talk page unfortunately necessitated the removal of his ability to edit that as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse admin action and support site-ban. I take a very dim view of using our internal processes to harass someone, regardless of good work that they did. Reminds me of Tenebrae, but arguably milder. Still, harassment is not to be tolerated. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSite-Ban. We don't need an editor who seems to have spent a year seeking vengeance. I haven't researched their record as a content editor, but we don't need editors whose desire for revenge appears to be greater than their desire to contribute to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's one of the top 1000 editors of all time. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000. He specializes in the losing side of politics - for example he wrote a huge series of articles about the Guantanamo Bay detainees. His desire to contribute to the encyclopedia is quite strong. I hope the revenge thing was a one-time aberration, and he will promise to cut it out - though I admit he hasn't yet. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Laments being blocked on Wikipedia, yet continues the same destructive behavior? While drunk? (what!) Classic lack of insight. Wikipedia is not therapy-- or AA. --Deepfriedokra(talk)00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban, as I reported to several blocks, it does not accept the unblock requests and to approved to ban in the English Wikipedia. Maanshen (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to hack into admin accounts
I have received a notification that there have been multiple failed attempts to log into my account from a new device. The last time that happened it also happened to numerous other administrators' accounts. I have the following suggestions:
Any administrators, please make sure you have a secure password, not something easy to hack, such as an English word, or a password only five characters long, etc etc.
If anyone else has recently had the same experience then I suggest they post here to say so, so that we can tell whether it is another mass attack or not. JBW (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman strong, unique, passwords are mandatory for admins. 2FA is only mandatory for interface admins. Unfortunately the 2FA system lacks sufficient support to make it mandatory for larger groups of users so far. — xaosfluxTalk16:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information, zzuuzz. If that's all it is then it's not too bad. In the context I can tell what you mean, but I have no idea what "SOP" stands for. Just out of interest, would you like to enlighten me? JBW (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He tries again and again and again and again (yes, this person, also known as "Projects") -- one day this week he tried just under 200 times to guess my password. I know it's him. He'd probably stop if he realized I'm more amused than annoyed. Antandrus(talk)16:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on my Wikimedia account, presumably since I have 2FA, but someone tried to reset the password to my VRTS account (which has access to restricted CU queues) this morning. Could be a coincidence, but... – Joe (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, but I also have 2FA, enabled when I decided to run RfA. I think any admin who doesn't is nuts possibly not giving enough consideration to the possibilities. :D Yes, it's a minor extra step when you need to login again. Yes, the whole scratch codes thing sounds scary. But I would feel so frickin' idiotic if I got hacked because I crossed my fingers instead of acknowledging that as an admin I needed to be more careful. For those who haven't enabled because it feels daunting: the good folks at Help talk:Two-factor authentication won't make fun of you even when you ask the stupidest question they've ever heard. Believe me. valereee (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scrath codes are not really scary. I recently had to reset the 2FA because I switched to a new device; I just disabled 2FA and then re-enabled it; this generates the new set of codes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been said a million times, but there's no harm in saying it again. Don't use the same password as you use on any other site. You might be really proud of yourself for remembering "l+0r@NLngf^#G2amVm~;", but if you also used that on another site that does something idiotic like storing passwords as plain text (and how would you know?), it might as well be "12345". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last I heard, people whose technical opinions I respect were of the opinion that MediaWiki's 2FA was not fit for purpose. Has something significantly changed in how it's implemented, compared to what it used to be? This isn't a bank; if you have a long password unique to WP, I can't imagine a realistic scenario where 2FA is actually important. The one use I can think of for 2FA on Wikipedia is it helps me identify people who take this place too seriously; they're the ones who tend to mock/patronize the people who choose not to use it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because people vastly overestimate their ability to choose high-entropy passwords. You tell them to choose a 10-character passsword, and they use "opensesame". Tell them to include a mix of uppercase, lowercase, and numbers, and they use "OpenSesame1". Tell them to include punctuation too, then it's "OpenSesame1!". Eventually you just give up and use a system that doesn't give them any options. Other than that, it protects against casual shoulder-surfers, and maybe provides some minimal protection against malware and eavesdropping. 2FA is not magic pixie dust. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the benefits of well-implemented 2FA in general. What I don't understand is why I should bother with (what I understand to be) poorly-implemented 2FA on a random website like Wikipedia. If someone does manage to break into my admin account, their ability to cause anything beyond fleeting problems for anyone besides myself is, to a first approximation, zero. 2FA on a bank account? Yes. 2FA on a WP account? Meh. Demanding admins use 2FA on their WP account? Obnoxious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 2FA should not be mandatory for admins. However, as much as I'd like to believe that checkusers, oversighters, and intadmins are all using strong, unique passwords, that's probably not the case. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been receiving such notifications regularly for the last two years. Most of these notifications come from projects where I don't know the language. However, I have 2FA on my account. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If 2FA becomes compulsory for admins, you'll definitely lose my services, which won't break Wikipedia — but still, I may not be the only one. (I can't work a smartphone, HJ Mitchell. What do you think of that?) Not sure which would come first — me accidentally locking myself out, or me being too pissed off to stick around. Do not be concerned for my security, though; I have a very secure password that's not even a little like "opensesame". Admittedly Bishzilla uses "Bishonen" as her password, and thinks she's being very clever. But then she's not currently an admin, fortunately. Bishonen | tålk22:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I'm waiting for 3FA to come out. If I have this crooked, I should buy a smartphone (don't own one) and jeopardize my privacy every time I use it so I can protect my password on Wikipedia. Got it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping you from using whatever device you're using right now to generate the token. Arguably, that's no longer exactly "two factor" and won't protect at all against malware, but hey, no one will ever know. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If WMF makes more than a lazy hand wave in the general direction of providing support for their 2FA system, I will respond in kind. I guess I'm just a nutter, eh Valereee? Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled security theater programming!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, there are a variety of apps you can run on your desktop that implement 2FA (actually, time-based one-time passwords), so you don't need a smartphone. I can't recommend specific ones, though. In case anyone's unsure if it is safe to reuse your password on another site, HaveIBeenPwned should quickly convince you otherwise. A good password manager should be in everyone's toolkit, especially admins. Not just on Wikipedia, everywhere. I freely admit I haven't been able to set up my partner with a good password manager, though, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Some of those password managers even implement 2FA, though an argument could be made for doing that separately. I'd love to demand admins enable 2FA, but I do have to admit the user experience, both here and on other sites, just isn't up to snuff yet. --Yamla (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo, just pointing out that I struck that word in its original appearance and also gave a laughing emoji after the statement. No, I don't actually think you're a nutter. valereee (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like Bish and others, I would be inclined to bail on the Project if they forced admin to use 2FA. Their current system is butt ugly with virtually no way to recover a lost token. And I never use a smartphone for Wikipedia, even to just read. Surely there are better ways to add security than the current 2FA system. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Fastily! I tried it with a password constructed on similar principles as mine, and got told it was "very unguessable - great", plus something about centuries that I didn't altogether understand:
centuries — 100 attempts/hour (one machine, rate limiting in place)
centuries — 10 attempts/sec (one machine, no rate limiting)
centuries — 10 billion attempts/sec, assumes aggressive attacker with access to many machines
Meaning it would take centuries no matter what..? I don't use it for any other purposes than Wikipedia, nor outside my home at any time - so no shoulder-surfing - and have complete faith in the discretion of my family. (My AI-professional son indeed advised me on how to construct a good password, that I can remember and nobody can guess.) TheresNoTime, I therefore don't really feel the need to get my head round WebAuthn at least not at this time. Sorry, but there was just a lot of thorny reading. Bishonen | tålk23:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
It means you have a very strong password :) "centuries" means that it would probably take literal centuries for a hacker (of sufficiently advanced capabilities) to guess your password. -FASTILY23:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting! I did the same thing as Bish (created one from the principles I use) and came up with "safely unguessable", although I only got "centuries" for the first one. After that it was 31 years/12 days/1 sec. valereee (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily, thank you -- I like the "centuries" it says to me (if that particular deranged LTA wants to spend centuries trying to guess mine, it's fine with me -- it's certainly a better use of his time than spewing his usual cringey sputter). Antandrus(talk)00:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would, because no one actually guesses passwords, they try dictionary attacks, or of the have the hash they try and solve it locally. Length of really the best security for a password. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There are 30 characters in the phrase "This is my Wikipedia password.". If we assume a limited character set of [A-Za-z.], that's 53 possible characters per position, which means that there are a total of 5330 possible passwords. Using Power of 10 notation, this comes out to ~5.349 × 1051. For reference, the Earth contains 1.33 × 1050 atoms. -FASTILY00:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to look at that, from a dictionary attackers point of view, is that it's just five of the most common words in English, in a somewhat predictable order. A dictionary attacker would eat it for breakfast. At least add some random stuff. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)01:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I think that's still a step up from the average person who most certainly isn't choosing passwords like that. Obligatory xkcd. -FASTILY01:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say someone did that - everywhere they went their password was "This is my Wikipedia password." "This is my Facebook password." "This is my Hotmail password." "This is my bank account password." Technically, they are using a different password everywhere. It's a difficult password for a computer to guess, easy for them to remember. But all it takes is for one of those passwords to appear on a list of hacked passwords somewhere and it would be easy for hackers to guess all the others because of the obvious formula. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving21:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates a problem with any password quality checker: If well-implemented, then you can trust any answer of "this password is bad". But you can't always trust "this password is good"; all it takes is for the attacker to be using a different dictionary than the tool. For example, Fastily's checker says that "correct horse battery staple" is a good password. No, not a password I generated using the CHBS method. The actual string "correct horse battery staple". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I tried some well-known song lyric phrases: rock, hymns, folk music. Very easy for me to remember, but perhaps because they were sentences, they were considered to be unguessable, even though they were comprised of common words. Did not insert any symbols or unnecessary capitalization. Try some well-known verses from Led Zeppelin, and you will see my point. Is this because the sentence is long, or because a machine is unable to parse human speech? Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!23:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tribe of Tiger: See my comment just above. Not to pick on Fastily's estimator, but you really can't trust any such tool in that way. All you learned is that the phrase you typed isn't in Fastily's dictionary. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Suffusion of Yellow: Your comment makes sense. As an older person, out of the loop, it's discouraging and confusing, attempting to follow instructions for strong passwords. Before the yr is out, I must upgrade my ancient (dumb) phone to a Smart Phone, so I guess 2FA is the best choice? Yet another learning curve? I am so confused. Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tribe of Tiger: Go low tech. Unless someone's likely to break into your house and rummage through your (physical) files in search of your passwords, just choose something really complex and write it down. And in the unlikely event that that's a real risk, write it down and lock it away. If you prefer high-tech, use a password manager (I use KeePass), but don't forget to make multiple backups of the password database. No don't use 2FA; you don't have any "dangerous" privileges so people aren't going to try that hard. You'll just end up locking yourself out. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks! I had to chuckle at your suggestion & myself! My WP password is difficult to remember, so I wrote it in an obscure poetry book. I have multiple hundreds of books in my old house, every room but the bathrooms! Still, what is considered "complex"? Length? A variety of capitalization? Symbols? A combination? Willing to stay low-tech, and consult my old books. Best wishes, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My situation is like Yahya, every week I get notifications that someone is trying to log into my account. It's been going on for years, always a few every week. And often on other language Wikipedias. I think in part it's because I have a short username. But it seems random, it's not repeated attempts from a determined troll, that would be alarming. Liz
I have a specific determined troll targeting me almost daily, both with login attempts (across multiple projects) and with death threats. My password is strong, I have 2FA enabled, and I filter the emails. They aren't getting my account and I don't see the emails unless I check. Oh, the joys of volunteering at Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason WMF doesn't have a system for email or SMS 2FA? It seems like email would certainly be simple enough, and the SMS 2FA isn't exactly going to break the WMFs bank. That tends to be a lot more comfortable for users than a dedicated app to provide a code. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Email is already the recovery mechanism for passwords, so making it also the recovery mechanism for 2FA would mean one compromised email account would meet both factors. — xaosfluxTalk15:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Set a second email address for 2FA. I assume most everyone here already has one email address they use for Wikipedia, and another for personal. You're just never going to get buy-in on using 2FA with apps or an external key. My place of work can't even get buy-in for it, and they pay us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're talking about Wikipedia though, not actual secure information. Here's a totally unreliable source that says SMS 2FA only stops 76% of attacks... is susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks, social engineering and SIM swapping. So 76% percent of what attacks? Who knows, but it's still leaps and bounds more secure than no 2FA. No reason to let perfect be the enemy of good. If someone is doing MITM SMS attacks, or cloning your SIM to get your Wikipedia password, well what the fuck. You're probably a spy using Wikipedia talk pages for one way blind coded messages, and should have better security anyway. Can also break MITM attacks by having a user text the code to Wikipedia, rather than the other way around, vastly improving the security. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bad actor doesn't even have to bother with SIM cloning these days, they just have to gin up a fake letter of authorization on the proper letterhead to get a copy of SMS messages forwarded in real time, as well as ability to spoof outgoing messages. There's no sense in building a system that we know will be junk before the first line of code is written. I'd rather see the foundation use some of their bloated budget to mail out hardware keys for admins. MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For all the admins that will willingly disclose their mailing address to WMF? You're assuming that someone A) Wants to access AdminX's Wikipedia account, B) Already has AdminX's Wikipedia password, C) Has AdminX's mobile number, D) Is willing to forge documents and get involved with a telecom company to try and get realtime access to SMS messages and access to spoof outgoing SMS messages. That's the use case you're designing against? Rather than something that exists now, will prevent the vast majority of the already vanishingly few admin account compromises, and is much easier for people to use, so will have a much higher use rate? Sure you can mail individual hardware keys to every admin willing, and replace them as they get lost and such, and the foundation can maintain an list of people's addresses, usernames and hardware assigned to them so that 20% of admins will take part. Or, OR, you set something up that almost everyone can use very easily, isn't quite as secure, but has a much higher use rate resulting in a more secure environment than the more secure design. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like a few people above, the WMF would be losing my services if they made me use the utterly useless Heath Robinson 2FA system that they currently claim to be useful. You'd think that we'd currently have developers working hard on crap like this, or the fact that a large amount of people using mobile devices don't even receive talk page messages, but apparently "Growth features" and fancy skins are far more important that people actually being able to use or administrate the project. Black Kite (talk)18:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm one of the admins whose account was compromised back in 2015, I am quite shocked that the community focuses more me having weak password, not the hacker who committed the criminal act of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing my account. I'm Canadian and I don't know how this applies when the perpetrator (in any country), committing the act in the US (since WMF server is in the US) on a Canadian victim. But whoever hacked my account could have been sentenced up to 10 years in jail for that stunt according to the Canadian law. The community seems quite intent on blaming the victim. I draw the analogy that someone's house is being broken into. Instead of calling the police, the neighbours blamed the victim for installing a cheap lock that enabled the breaking in. To this date, I don't think CU (which would have IP address of the person committing the unauthorized access in a timely manner) has notified the police for this on-wiki crime. OhanaUnitedTalk page07:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Equating an Internet account compromise with a home invasion seems a bit too much of a hyperbole for my taste. Suppose that an elected official in your government uses a weak password to secure their social media account, and then an attacker manages to compromise the account and use it to mislead the public. Yes, the attacker would likely be guilty of a crime, but surely both the government official and the social media website should also bear some responsibility for not having stronger safeguards against the use of weak passwords. Mz7 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the job of volunteer CUs to notify law enforcement. That would be a WMF thing. I wouldn't assume they would tell us if they had; that might compromise an a investigation.
I also agree with Mz7; going back to the house analogy; suppose you let a friend use your house while you're away on vacation. You explain to him that your neighborhood has had a rash of burglaries so could he please remember to lock the door and set the alarm when he's out. He heads out for drinks with the door wide open and no alarm set. Wouldn't you know it, someone walks out with your TV. Is it "victim-blaming" to be angry with your friend? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suffusion of Yellow, please avoid using strawman argument or diminishing other people's experience. I didn't share my password with anyone so it was not like a friend borrowed the password and being careless about it. As you can see from that conversation, someone systematically crawled through the internet looking for leaked passwords. I am very disappointed that the community took a harsher stance towards sockpuppets, copyvios, incivility or harassment while letting real criminals (with clear evidence) off the hook without any punishment. Compromised account from this project alone is quite prevalent. Judging from Category:Compromised accounts and Wikipedia:List of resysopped users, over 400 editors and 15 admins in en.wp had their accounts compromised at some point. I do wonder if WMF Legal team has ever been notified in any of these 500+ occurrences? Can Maggie Dennis comment if Legal/Trust & Safety team have ever been informed of account breaches and whether it was in any standard operating procedure for admins/stewards locking compromised accounts to contact legal team? OhanaUnitedTalk page03:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts are stolen all the time, on many websites. I doubt the police does anything about it: one they'd be swamped with work if they tried to process these, two they often don't have jurisdiction, and three it's often difficult to find the attacker, not least due to use of proxies etc. Prosecution is even more difficult, and very costly. If a person uses a strong password, does not reuse that password, and takes basic security precautions to avoid getting malware on their computer, their account isn't going to be compromised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A brief skim through Category:Compromised accounts suggests many of those are just WP:LITTLEBROTHER incidents. Surely, some 9-year-old walking up to a logged-in session and typing curse words is not a matter for law enforcement. And in your case, it looks like a white-hat did you (and us) a favor. Sure, they were a bit of trollish in how they went about it (could have sent an email to T&S, no?), but in the end they prevented someone with worse intentions from using your account. Back in 2015 admins had the ability to edit sitewide JS. I'm sure you're happy that no one used your account to add a privacy-violating tracker to Mediawiki:common.js. Now they possibly did violate some law or other, but it would be nonsensical to prosecute someone for merely demonstrating a security issue. Even if you disagree with that, I wouldn't assume there is "clear evidence" of who did it. There a good chance that they (correctly) used a VPN or a proxy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know some high level NS_ people use very strong passwords and no 2FA on their personal stuff. Of course I don't ask why.North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been four years since the community voted to ban me from Wikipedia. For the last two years I requested of the arbitration committee that I be allowed to edit again. However given it was Wikipedias editors who decided I had become a net negative, I believe it is those editors who I ought to need to appeal to. I fully admit to being short of temper, frequently drunk, and quite often profane to the extreme. But that was four years ago, and I have changed for the better. I no longer drink to excess . I am far calmer and not prone to losing my temper as I used to, perhaps because I drink far less, or maybe I've just gotten calmer with age. So I'm asking the community if they would allow me the privilege of editing again, should anyone have questions for me please feel free to post here. If someone would be so kind as to copy paste this to where a majority of editors will see it I'd be grateful. Thanks ¬¬¬¬
(watching) It's certainly ironic, considering the number of editors we have whose very successful wiki-careers are built around everything but content creation. Hey ho. SN5412919:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I'm biased. But, assuming that there aren't any red flags (socks), I'd support allowing DS to edit again. Agree that DS is aggressive and often (apologies, DS) sloppy in their haste to add content. But they have added a lot of useful content to Wikipedia and I consider DS a net positive. I should also mention DS's ability to identify nangparbat socks is unparalleled. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Checkuser was recently run on my account, hilly Billy Holiday socked with a similar sounding username. I have no other accounts and have not edited since my ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is documented at Hillbillyholiday's SPI - it may read a little confusing, but I can confirm it's the case. I can also confirm, being somewhat familiar with the technical circumstances, that I have nothing to add from a checkuser perspective. In other words, it gets a tentative green light from me. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally prefer a formal probationary period for situations like this (where self control appears to be the issue) of something like 3 or 6 months. But I'd support without that as a second choice. The issue appears to be solely self control, and it's been ~4 years. Worth another try for someone with a strong content history IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept appeal and I'm willing to accept any probationary steps others think are appropriate. I remember DS vividly, as both an excellent defender of sources, and as a major pain in the ass. I'm glad he mentions drinking in the appeal, something some of us already knew was part of the problem. (but I wouldn't have mentioned it unless he had). If DS comes back and stays away from the extremes, he really is a big net plus. He has that potential. Whether or not he lives up to it, only time will tell, but it has been long enough that I feel we should give him a last, 2nd chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I really don't know where some people are getting this idea from that DS was somehow a potentially useful contributor with only a short temper being a problem. No, DS was never a useful contributor. His main problems were always incompetence and tendentiousness. He wasn't forever edit-warring because he had a short temper; he was forever edit-warring because he was always drawn into editing articles where he had a massive tendentious POV, didn't have the self-restraint to stop him from filling articles with poorly-digested, poorly-written and poorly understood tendentious POV fluff, and lacked the intellectual acumen to engage meaningfully on talk about these issues. Yes, he wrote a lot of content – a lot of uniformly bad content. He's the only editor I ever knew who managed to get himself topic-banned from at least three political hot-issue areas at once (Eastern Europe, India/Pakistan, and US politics); this didn't happen just because he used to swear a lot when drunk. A net positive? Ridiculous. Fut.Perf.☼06:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per WP:ROPE, and four years being a long time in Wikipedia. It's certainly long enough for people, and their circumstances, to change. If FP@S's venom is at all justified, then we'll all be back here soon enough. Most importantly of all, DS must know that too: if he has another chance, it'll only be the one. SN5412908:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the old "give them a last chance, re-blocks are cheap" mantra. No, re-blocks are never cheap, especially not with entrenched, experienced disruptors with wikifriends protecting them. This person has had dozens of second chances and last chances. He somehow managed to talk himself out of a block 12 times in 9 years. And every time he had to be re-blocked afterwards, it was a long-drawn-out, energy-draining procedure, devastating to all envolved. BTW, he now even denies [5] he was ever topic-banned from Eastern Europe. Yes, he was, under his "User:The Last Angry Man" sock account, in October 2011 (shortly after having talked himself out of the initial sock block for that one.) Fut.Perf.☼08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(General reply to all) It wasn't much of a denial when in the same sentence they admitted to being t-banned from two other topic areas. I think we can allow a gill of good faith for a memory lapse over something that occurred a decade ago for three months. What I'm looking for is the possibility that someone can change in the amount of time that has passed (I doubt anyone would argue that, except the most incorrigible), and signs of recent disruption (socking). CU gives that a (tentative) all-clear, and I suppose NOTPUNITIVE means something. Admittedly I have the advantage of looking at this as something of a historical episode, not being personally invested, but I assure anyone who wants to know that, should DS go back to their old ways—or discover new ways!—of disruption, then I will be the first back here calling for reinstallation of the site ban. And one where their feet won't touch the ground. SN5412910:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd like to see evidence of meaningful, constructive editing elsewhere (not necessarily a wikimedia project) before voting to support an unban. This user has been blocked before and convinced us they'd changed, only to demonstrate no significant improvement. Maybe this time, they really have, but there's nothing here that demonstrates that to me. --Yamla (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support only under a formally logged restriction that, for at least one year, the indefinite siteban will be immediately reinstated if they are blocked for any reason whatsoever. This user has been blocked, conditionally unblocked, and then re-blocked twelve times; the average time to the recidivism block is 44.08 days thanks to an outlier at nearly 6 months; in all but three of these cases they were re-blocked less than a month later, the shortest time being less than two days. This doesn't count numerous blocks that expired with no action, nor the block logs of the ten confirmed socks in their SPI. This is a user who has shown, repeatedly and consistently through time, that they know how to talk themselves out of consequences, that blocks don't teach them anything, and that they either fully intend to reoffend or they can't help themselves. I'm all for second chances (although we're well into double-digit numbers of chances here already) but let's not waste our time if they show, again, that they still can't follow the rules. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector:, I'm honestly struggling to understand how this restriction is supposed to be effective. The threat of, and actual implementation of, indefinite blocks/bans has previously proven to have little deterrent value in this editor's case. Are we really giving that much benefit of the doubt that this time it will work? Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)01:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am concerned that such a "one strike and you're out again" rule would actually have the opposite effect, of effectively raising the bar for any sanction to be imposed. Given the long history of administrators bending over backwards to accommodate this person and of wikifriends protecting him, administrators might be even more reluctant to impose even just a short-term block if they knew that it would automatically trigger a permanent ban again. Fut.Perf.☼08:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: well, the fact that previous sanctions have done little to deter this editor is the point of the restriction. They have a long record of not learning from restrictions and we don't have any way to be sure that this time in the penalty box will be any different from the other dozens of times. The restriction is just a relief valve: if we unblock them and they just get in trouble again, we don't need to have another lengthy discussion about what to do about it this time, we just reinstate the ban. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, per IV. I remember DS well, he was among the first prolific editors I encountered in my own time on Wikipedia. He was impatient, sometimes careless, profane, and bloody rude. Also, to anyone who knew him well, it was obvious that he believed deeply in Wikipedia's mission, and he drew his motivation from writing content. He stepped over the line often enough that I don't see this being a "last chance": but I think four years off the site is long-enough, given his particular offences, that we can seriously consider an appeal that identifies and promises to correct behavioral problems. He's going to be on a very tight leash as is: I believe he's still under an ARBIPA TBAN (right?) and I would additionally suggest, per IV, that any further issues with copyvios or sockpuppetry should lead to a reinstatement of the ban. Vanamonde (Talk)15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support also per IvanVector and Vanamonde93. It's possible that he has overcome the issues that led to his siteban, but I'm afraid I don't trust him enough to support him coming back without strict restrictions. I note that he doesn't discuss all of the issues that led to the siteban. Doug Wellertalk17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support under the terms outlined by Ivanvector. He has now stayed away from the project for almost half as long as he was ever active, and I don't think his failure to spell out why he kept being blocked is a sign of incorrigibility so much as the fact that he has already admitted to being an ass and not much else really needs to be said. I never have never encountered this editor or his contributions, so I cannot comment on the above question as to whether there was a fundamental content problem as well as a behavioral one; if there was, I hope that not being drunk will help with the quality of his edits as much as he claims it will help his behavior. Darkness Shines should understand, however, that if he is blocked again at any point in the nearish future, that block will be essentially permanent. —Compassionate727(T·C)17:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The WP:STANDARDOFFER was expended long ago, they have had enough WP:ROPE to moor a battleship, and their content creation cannot offset a fundamental inability to cooperate. While I appreciate the intention behind Ivanvector's proposed restriction, I cannot support it. After looking through the history of blocks, bans, ANI threads, etc., I think that there will be lengthy discussions the next time that DS blows their top. There is copious evidence that such another incident is inevitable. I would like to believe their claims of growth but there is a years-long record of previous such claims not being borne out. If DS is able to show productive, civil editing for an extended period (six months or more) on a similar project, I would reconsider. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)17:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was probably a time where I would have been swayed by the appeals to personal growth, time served, right to an nth chance, etc. But that time is past, because I've seen over and over again how this community bends over backwards to rehabilitate endlessly problematic editors while denying even a scrap of empathy to the people whom they've harmed. We pat ourselves on the back for our graciousness, quote the-quality-of-mercy-is-not-strained and WP:ROPE, condemn as "venomous" anyone who objects to lifting sanctions... and then when these editors backslide, no one who's commenting here in favor of an nth chance will lift a finger. I'm no longer willing to participate in what increasingly strikes me as a cynical dynamic. MastCellTalk18:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I note that I was the original proposer at WP:ANI in February 2018 of the current site ban. I was about to propose that Darkness Shines be asked to identify a niche area in which they would be allowed to edit to demonstrate that they had, in four years, learned how to edit collaboratively, or at least to avoid the worst. Then I reviewed their history again. I see not only the longest block log I have ever seen, which is mostly in 2011 to 2014, but also repeated episodes of sockpuppetry. As a result, I don't trust Darkness Shines, and I don't think that I will trust Darkness Shines in 2026. They may and do mean to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but they have demonstrated not only a lack of civility and a lack of discipline, but a lack of respect for the rules. As I said four years ago, Yuck. Ugh. I don't trust Darkness Shines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept appeal and unblock. Four years is a long time, and Darkness Shines has given a plausible explanation of why we can expect they will contribute more productively now than they did before. I know it's not guaranteed, and we've been burned before, but if we're not willing to accept their explanation then we might as well give up on the theory that indefinite does not mean infinite. -- RoySmith(talk)15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Anyone who is thinking of supporting needs to first review Darkness Shines' block log, which contains three indefinite blocks (that is to say, Darkness Shines has successfully appealed an indefinite block in the past saying they've changed, exactly like this, and then gotten themselves blocked again, twice), as well as the discussion that led to the most recent block, their appeal to their previous block (which had an "it's been a long time, I have changed" tone similar to this one); the full text of the other time they successfully appealed an indefinite block is unavailable because it was via email, but the message here makes it clear they promised they had turned a new leaf and could be civil back then, too. The only rationale given here is "they may have changed", but note that in Darkness Shines' explanation for how they changed, they say almost nothing - they were not simply banned for being short of temper, frequently drunk, and quite often profane to the extreme. They were banned for continuous edit-warring and a sustained pattern of gross, repeated incivility across entire topic areas - something that goes way beyond the occasional loss of temper. --Aquillion (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, perhaps with the conditions mentioned above by Ivanvector. I'm certainly not saying that DS was ever a model editor (and nor is he, to be fair) but some of the attacks on DS above are slightly overblown, and at least one is exaggerated to the point of being economical with the truth. I don't see the downside of a WP:ROPE trial. Black Kite (talk)10:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I recall interacting once with Darkness Shines, whose action was (in my opinion) helpful for Wikipedia. I'd support a filter for foul language, but it should apply for everyone. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking through their edit history I have a hard time believing they would be a net positive should they return, and I place more importance on that than the length of time they've been blocked for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm all for extending some latitude for time served, but this was a community ban after 3 previous indefs, I don't think any more chances are going to change anything for the better. How many more hours are people supposed to waste on one editor when they have shown no interest in moderating their tone or editing behavours? Valeince (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the impenetrable Meta Strikes Back. Well, at least as a venue, it isn't a ghost town like Fakebook's Meta (Truth Sokial?). BTW, the Glossary cracked me up. Q:what is X?A:See X on Meta. What, we are on Meta? Well, we're still not gonna link it for ya, peasants! And... scene. El_C08:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure if there is a logical discussion venue - no doubt there should be one, not sure if it should be here, somewhere else local, or there @MJL: - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:Your reply was (and still is) correctly positioned as a reply to El C. See WP:INDENT for the basic rules of threaded discussion: If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level. Floquenbeam's reply above (not made with the reply tool) is an example of one that is not correctly positioned. Modulus12 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course. It's a problem with WP:INDENT, not the reply tool IMHO, in that it's not obvious unless you carefully look and line up the replied. Like it or not, User:Floquenbeam's post is an obvious reply to El C, mine is not. Doug Wellertalk09:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Modulus12: Didn't read all of your post. So you are saying that the reply tool isn't doing what I expect/want it to? I did notice once that using it and saving after someone else posted didn't cause an edit conflict but put it after the other person posted, so I went in and moved mine. Doug Wellertalk09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you expected it to do. But in this diff the reply tool correctly positioned your comment as a reply to El C, after Nosebagbear's reply to El C. I don't think there's anything wrong with the essay WP:INDENT either. Modulus12 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question, asking for a friend. Do administrators have to sign their names in blood when forced to agree to this or will a regular pen or pencil do? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My friend is rejoicing as we speak, because apparently "All advanced rights holders" doesn't apply to admins, as in "The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct: All Wikimedia Foundation staff, Board members, Wikimedia affiliate board members, staff and contractors; All advanced rights holders;". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please answer a procedural question (I don't want to e-mail the meta address to ask)? If I vote no, there is apparently a box to comment on why I'm voting no. Do I have to comment? If I don't, is there some kind of, uh, follow-up? I find the instructions confusing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having just voted, you do not need to fill out the comment. There was no follow-up after submitting my vote, beyond receiving a PGP hash receipt of it for my own records. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comments box is available regardless of the answer to question 1 (Options: No, -, Yes); it is for overall comments, not necessarily a justification for your vote. — xaosfluxTalk15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, upon voting No (a few min prior to commenting here, at AN), my vote box comment read (in full): learn to condense! I'm helping! El_C15:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend you include the reason why you voted no if you voted no. If ratification was to fail at this stage, then the revision committee that gets formed is going to use what people wrote as the basis for deciding what changes should get made. –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving comments no matter how you vote is helpful. Either it will pass and there will be an amendment process in a year (at which time it would still be good to know what people liked/disliked at ratification) and a U4C building committee (who might be able to address some issues that were disliked) or it won't pass and revisions will get made in which case again it's helpful to know what people liked and disliked so the right things are changed. If you already voted and didn't leave a comment you can go back and vote - only your most recent vote/comments are kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a gross misreading on my part, but does the section on harassment, as currently written, prevent us from sending non-public off-wiki information about other editors to ARBCOM? If so, that's immediate grounds for opposition; we cannot hope to deal with off-wiki harassment and coordination without the ability to handle such information. Vanamonde (Talk)20:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm very confident that it's not intended as such, you're right that the base UCOC text doesn't include write-outs for it. It has a general category, that UPE (etc) combatting wouldn't fall into, and then names certain "included but not limited to" names buckets. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Nosebagbear: do you know if ARBCOM members have commented on this before? I'm minded to ping some of them here, but I don't want to make a scene if it's been resolved elsewhere. I find this very concerning. ARBCOM has frequently banned users here because of their off-wiki activity; how is this to be brought to their attention going forward? Is the board aware that they are essentially preventing us from discussing off-wiki harassment anymore? Vanamonde (Talk)15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to yell for attention, but given the off-wiki harassment I've seen, I think it's justified; @Wugapodes, Barkeep49, and L235: I'd be interested in hear whether y'all think the the doxing section of the UCoC prevents editors from bringing off-wiki information to ARBCOM when it relates to things besides paid editing. Vanamonde (Talk)19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself, I don't get that reading, but if you are not confident that the policy is clear enough, then that is a good reason to oppose. Section 3.1 of the UCoC, Harassment, includes a definition at the start any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. Sharing non-public personal information with the arbitration committee in private for the purposes of administering the project does not seem to fall under that definition. My understanding of the doxing example in the text is that it is limited by that main definition, and covers the public sharing of non-public personal information as the main outcome of that action would be intimidation, outrage, or upset, but private reports have the main outcome of effective project administration. — Wug·a·po·des20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can see how it may be read that way; and if it's always read that way, it would address my concern. I'm not (yet) confident it will always be read that way, however. Vanamonde (Talk)20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I am not speaking publicly about the UCoC Enforcment draft, other than to encourage people to vote and leave comments regardless of which way they're voting. Courtesy ping to MJL who has been speaking about their interpretation of things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the apparently obligatory fear and loathing of anything WMF does, can somebody explain what the problem is with the UCoC? I get the objection made by Vanamonde93 about off-wiki evidence, but I assume that's something that can get fixed with a minor working tweak. So, what else about this has people upset? I've read through the whole thing and I really can't find anything it prohibits which I wouldn't want prohibited. I assume nobody's saying that sexual harassment, doxing, threat of violence, etc, are actually things they want to allow. So, what am I missing? -- RoySmith(talk)15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perhaps in the "pass with fixes but not right now" camp. I'm leery about the lack of language describing who gets to decide when there are failures to resolve disputes locally or systemic failures to enforce the UCoC; if this is clearly a decision made by the community at the target project and/or Metawiki, there's no problem IMO, but right now it's vague and could be interpreted as a blank check for office actions. signed, Rosguilltalk15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there already is pretty much a blank check for office actions, and this doesn't change that one way or the other. Is there any fundamental difference between WMF doing something we don't like and justifying it with "Because T&S" vs "Because UCoC"? -- RoySmith(talk)16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to worry, even without indulging the "WMF is out to get us" mentality, that the community buy-in afforded by a successful passing of a UCoC would encourage the WMF to use its provisions more fully than the existing T&S. Given the possibility, I'd rather object now and push for language I am fully comfortable with rather than endorse something I don't necessarily agree with. signed, Rosguilltalk20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I'm not convinced about the possibility of a minor working tweak. I'm also not sure how this impacts on fighting paid editing. Without something more official I shall probably vote no. Doug Wellertalk16:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Principal issues to me, @RoySmith with the enforcement guideliness (phase 2) include:
i) There are numerous requirements of anonymity capacity, but no countervailing evidentiary safeguards for the accused. It moves the marker a very long way.
ii) It also, despite it being the single most requested amendment to the 1st iteration of phase 2, has functionally zero right to be heard inclusion. Such a right definitely shouldn't be absolute, but given the community demand, its exclusion (other than one line that may refer to it, but only in specific regard to the U4C) is unacceptable
iii) It is unclear - even in English, making the translations likely even harder to be confident on reasoning
iv) The training is mandatory (the definition that grandfathers admins doesn't apply here), and doesn't give a community veto on its content
v) We were guaranteed that phase 2 would be iterative, but they decided, right at the endgame, that we would not be permitted any chance to amend significant parts of the policy text prior to the vote. That is, we'd never seen it until December, and despite major discussion, if we don't vote no, we can't fix flaws with it.
vi) We were not permitted a vote on phase 1, and then T&S policy stated that no-one in the community had requested a ratification vote prior to the ARBCOM open letter, and when I provided a diff demonstrating exactly that, six months earlier, they ceased communicating about it. Until all issues with prior engagement have been resolved, I am nervous about trusting future ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith "Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training to ensure a common understanding of implementation". That includes all advanced rights holders. Black Kite (talk)18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training... That includes admins: the "Affirmation of the UCoC among certain groups" section says The following individuals should be required to affirm... they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct...All advanced rights holders. The glossary says that "Advanced rights holders" includes admins. Hut 8.518:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework - Not gonna do that, personally. WP is suppose to be a fun hobby for me, and having to deal with a lengthy "seminar" and likely giving more personal information to the WMF than I would care to in the process of signing up does not sound enjoyable, plus whatever "follow-up" I'm sure they'll deem is necessary in a few months. I will almost certainly be resigning the mop if it comes to that. Hog FarmTalk20:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm just trying to share what I know. How the vote goes is beyond my control, but I'm glad the WMF is having a ratification process here. –MJL‐Talk‐☖00:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, with insufficient clarity about local control vs WMF control of enforcement, I worry that without further clarification in advance, this process as written will make it much easier to weaponize the UCOC, even easier than it is to weaponize our local policies. Some may recall we had a little dust up about that a few years ago, involving Fram? Voting yes on this, as written, seems to me to be giving up all the local control we painfully clawed back from WMF that time. Once approved, WMF will have zero incentive to modify things they like that we don't. Of course we all don't support harassment, but there is a thread on ANI right now where an editor is threatening to report another editor they're in a content dispute with to T&S for "bullying". I do not trust T&S to evaluate such a claim fairly. I think it will be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of T&S than even editors at ANI, or our local ArbCom. One thing I'm curious about; if editors of other language wikis - where there may be no functioning ArbCom, and where something like this might make sense as "better than nothing" - vote for this, and English WP editors vote against, I'm guessing WMF is going to interpret that as an approval to go ahead and apply it to us too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If 50.1% of voters support the enforcement guidelines, they will be applied to all editors. The UCoC was implemented by a Board resolution making it binding policy under section 11 of the Terms of Use, but also means it can only be modified with the consent of the Board. I expect the enforcement guidelines to be resolution'd into force the same way. Neither document allows the community to make amendments to the UCoC itself or the enforcement guidelines, the only indication such a thing might be possible is an announcement that is not binding on anyone and was signed only by the current Vice Chair of the Board. The latest I've heard from the WMF is that if the guidelines pass even with widespread opposition, there will be no amendments for at least a year. Of course, the Board can modify either document by resolution whenever they want. Putting on my pile of non-enwiki hats, I think the UCoC will be a good thing for many wikis. But the enforcement guidelines are just not ready yet, and ideally the UCoC itself should have had another pass too. It is not possible to simply legislate social change into existence with a few Board resolutions, it is necessary to actively work with the affected people to fix problems and to find a mutually-acceptable solution. However, the WMF has decided to ignore this successful consensus-based model, and I think both documents are worse off because of it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Fram, if anyone has forgotten. Please everyone: vote! I might disagree with "the powers that be" here on en.wp from time to time, but I have a heck of a lot more trust in en.wp that I have in WMF. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless, off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've always held the opinion that those who don't vote also don't get to complain about the result — I'm sure you feel the exact same way. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So that logic actually suggests you should vote in referendums. You're not voting for a person here. No gargabe in, no garbage out. Unlike with a person by voting you are making an actual decision here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: sorry to add to a close discussion, but while it's your choice if you want to vote because of the above discussion I just want to ensure that you understand SecurePoll is the exact same way we've been voting in arbcom elections (and some others) since 2009. And the only difference I can think of between this vote and such votes other than the obvious i.e. what you're voting for (possibly including the area of effect) and timeframe, is the scrutineer selection process (although scrutineers for arbcom elections come from outside en.wikipedia) and instructions, and voter eligibility. The software you're voting on, connection of the software to en.wikipedia and the community etc is the same. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the result of the RfC is contentious and implementation is stalling in part because of concerns about whether my close is valid. To resolve these concerns, I hope community review will yield a firm outcome that can be implemented without further disruption. — Wug·a·po·des01:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the close, both in general and of the specific subproposals, was a reasonable and accurate reflection of the discussion and consensus resulting from it, even though I am personally disappointed that some of the subproposals, such as subproposal #10, were closed as "no consensus". The edit war noticed by Muboshgu is WP:STONEWALLING by editors who opposed the proposals, and isn't suggestive of an issue with the close. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stonewalling aside, it's worth noting here the closer's conclusion in subproposal 1 that "Editors debated whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG" and "The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding". This contradicts the statement in the collapsible FAQ that "sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met". This reflects the established consensus as was built throughout the years, and so the closer wasn't in a position to challenge (effectively supervoting) it at that moment, especially since subproposal 11, which aimed to eliminate NSPORT's dependence on GNG, ended in failure. Wugapodes also had to cherrypick a DRv which suited his conclusion (that NSPORTS doesn't necessarily require GNG) while ignoring others that did not (1, 2, 3). That part of the closure needs to be amended. Avilich (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that statement contradicts the policy itself which reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. I think it's obvious that the policy document itself should supersede the FAQ. NemesisAT (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No 'policy' says that. The very purpose of the FAQ is to clarify ambiguities in the main text, so it supersedes any isolated sentence that just so happened to escape scrutiny. The FAQ is the result of years of RfCs and consensus building, and it is clearly the FAQ which reflects the ultimate spirit of the guideline. Avilich (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the guideline Nemesis is quoting doesn't even apply to determining notability or whether a subject merits an article: it is essentially equivalent to the instructions at AfC requiring assertions of notability be sourced, which is not necessarily the same as actually demonstrating notability. For subjects strictly under GNG (and failing ANYBIO), to be accepted at AfC a claim to notability must be supported by SIGCOV in multiple IRS: they have to show they meet GNG from the start. But NSPORT SSG-meeting subjects can be accepted with a claim to notability sourced only to an RS verifying they meet the SSG. That doesn't mean the subject is notable, it just means they don't need to demonstrate they meet GNG immediately (and in practice, don't need to until notability is actually challenged). For NSPORT, this sourcing requirement is also applied to all articles, not just ones that go through AfC. @Isaacl maybe could provide more info on this. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizzare and contrived way to interpret that sentence. Of course the first paragraph in an SNG applies to determining notability, that's what SNGs are for. Another sentence in the lead, Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). again suggests that notability can be presumed if a subject meets GNG or NSPORTS by suggesting that notability does not need to be established in other ways if NSPORTS is met. NemesisAT (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence states This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. This establishes the notability criteria as being GNG, with NSPORT SSGs helping to predict which subjects will meet GNG. How do you interpret that sentence? In particular the part where it says "and thus merit an article"? Or the part in the third sentence where it says then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article? Why does this link to GNG and nowhere else, and why does it say the inclusion criteria?
The second sentence is describing the sourcing requirements for an article to be in mainspace without being speedily deleted or rejected from AfC. That's not a "bizarre and contrived" interpretation, that's literally what that sentence was intended to mean.
The consensus is and has been that NSPORT presumes GNG notability but does not supersede it, and that the presumption is rebuttable. It takes extreme levels of WP:IDHT to ignore the result of the 2017 RfC, the entire purpose of the successful NOLY RfC, the explicit rationale behind the deletion of hundreds of SSG-meeting athletes, and the stated reason for upholding numerous DRVs. Claiming the guideline is just "internally inconsistent" means you have to ignore that overwhelming precedent as well as the several places in NSPORT where prediction of GNG is described, like the entirety of the FAQs (which haven't been challenged in 5 years). JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQs, while they derived from the 2017 RfC close, are pretty badly flawed (it was not a very good close). For one thing, they constantly refer to the "GNG", which does not apply to biographies, which most of the subjects covered by NSPORTS actually are. It should instead refer to NBASIC. Likewise, sports organizations should be meeting the (stricter) NORG requirements- a GNG pass is not, by site-wide policy, enough. "Both sides" of these NSPORTS disputes are so far up a rabbit hole, IMO, that it is difficult for an "outsider" even to understand what went wrong - bot-like creation of unsourced articles has been allowed to result in some highly motivated reasoning about Notability, when the actual problem is much more of a WP:MEATBOT issue, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQs, while they derived from the 2017 RfC close Uh no they were not. They predated that RfC by about 4 years, and reflect the consensus present from very early on that NSPORT predicts GNG.
For one thing, they constantly refer to the "GNG", which does not apply to biographies Where does it say GNG doesn't apply to biographies??? Just because there's a link to a people-specific SNG doesn't mean GNG can't apply, especially when BASIC itself links to the GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; you are right about the first thing; I have been holding the RfC close responsible for the misleading FAQ language, when it is much more likely that the misleading FAQ language helped skew the 2017 RfC.
For the second thing, where in WP:NBIO do you get the idea that the GNG applies to biographies, as some kind of underlying or alternative standard? That isn't what a see also reference means, nor is it backed up anywhere else in the guidelines AFAIK. The way NBIO is written, if someone wanted to argue that a biography meets the GNG though not NBASIC (say because IND is more strictly laid out in the latter guideline) then that argument should be given no weight, in the same way that, if someone argued that a publication passed NBOOK but not someone's idiosyncratic GNG exegesis, the latter argument for deletion would cut no weight either. NBASIC clearly supercedes the GNG for biographies in the same way that NORG does for companies. I thought this was clear enough from WP:N and NBIO themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, there are thousands of biography AfDs that not only did not appeal to NBASIC or ANYBIO, but which explicitly hinged on whether the subject met GNG. Again, where do you see that GNG is always prohibited from applying to biographies? JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even get me started on the quality of AfD discussions. The fact remains, though, that in 95%+ of cases there is no appreciable difference between the GNG and NBASIC - that doesn't change the fact that it is NBASIC that applies to biographies. The GNG can't apply in those cases any more than it can for books or for organizations (and yes, I've seen contributors cite the GNG in book AfDs and SIGCOV in ORG AfDs - that doesn't change the fact that neither is strictly relevant in those instances). This is the simple logic of these guidelines, and is quite straightforwardly presented on the relevant pages IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this exclusion of GNG straightforwardly presented? And how does that track with the multiple SNGs that explicitly defer to GNG/require equivalent sourcing? Are you genuinely claiming we must ignore the parts of an SNG that explicitly state its subjects can also be notable through meeting GNG, like WP:NPROF; or where the SNG defines itself specifically as a way to explain how the general notability guideline applies to its subjects, like WP:NFILM; or an SNG that ultimately requires GNG, like WP:NSPORT and WP:NWEB; or any SNG where the criteria are virtually identical to those of the GNG, e.g. requiring independent sources that provide in-depth information about the [subject]? JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've made myself understood (based on this reply), so I will try again. SNGs certainly can attempt to predict or defer to the GNG, but not all do. WP:NBASIC is one of the ones that does not. So on the face of it, what the 2017-2022 version of NSPORT did for athletes was to carve out an exceptional set of biographies to which the GNG rather than NBASIC is the relevant standard. This is silly, though, and incompatible with WP:CONLEVEL, and I can't imagine, for the small number of cases affected by the difference (mostly matters where NBASIC is stricter about independent sourcing), that anyone actually intended that the GNG standards apply rather than NBASIC.
In strict parallel to this, the 2017-2022 version of NSPORT also apparently intended to carve sports leagues out of NORG requirements and apply only the much looser GNG standards to them. Some people may actually have intended or desired this, but I would argue that the idea still runs afoul of WP:CONLEVEL. I would even go as far as to say that the current NORG carve-out for sports teams should be rethought (apparently they only need to meet GNG standards, but I can't imagine that this was anyone's thought through intention, either) - but because this is explicit in NORG, it would require some new consensus to eliminate the carveout.
So of course I am not saying that all SNGs are hermetically sealed from the GNG, which would be absurd. Some operate quite differently (GEOLAND, and in another sense NORG and NNUMBER), while others defer to it (NWEB) and others replace it while maintaining a very similar structure (NBOOK, NFILM and NBASIC). Some allow parallel paths - NPROF allows NBASIC as an alternative, for example. But what I am saying is that for SNGs that do structurally replace the GNG, typically by specifying criteria on similar principles (NORG, NNUMBER, NBASIC, NBOOK, and NFILM, notably), there is no recourse "outside" that SNG back into the GNG, unless explicitly carved out. Since there is no carveout for athletes in NBASIC, it - not the GNG - therefore applies to them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The controversy isn't about the RFC closure but its implementation, whether that should happen immediately or whether the guidelines are changed once a suitable replacement is formed. It's not stonewalling to stop an edit war, it's trying to rein in the chaos and if it happens again, I expect there will be blocks handed out. LizRead!Talk!01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Muboshgu wasn't stonewalling when they protected the page. The stonewalling was by the editors who were reverting attempts to implement the consensus, rather than attempting to address any inconsistencies or other issues (such as a need for copy editing) that resulted from its implementation.BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Well, part of it is about the closure. The closing statement for #1, despite having probably the correct outcome, is a gross mischaracterization of the proposal, the arguments, and the status quo ante consensus interpretation of NSPORT, and it absolutely needs to be amended. The claim that the proposal aimed to introduce a requirement for GNG is completely false, but he uses this definition and the fact #1 only got 55% numerical support as evidence that the interpretation of NSPORT that the subproposal references is not in fact consensus. To support his case he then specifically cites one DRV that was not brought up in the subproposal discussion (and did not even attest to any interpretive consensus) while deliberately ignoring the dozens of appropriate AfD/DRV examples that were actually mentioned there (and which did explicitly state NSPORT interpretation consensus). He additionally misrepresents a select quotation from NSPORT as if it was the only textual backing for the proposal's interpretation offered by supporters, and then tears it down with the specious assertion that the guideline doesn't include certain wording -- all while neglecting to acknowledge the comprehensive rebuttals to identical claims made within the discussion, including multiple examples of other textual support, including one with the exact wording he said was lacking. All of this, coupled with his history of unfamiliarity with the guideline followed by hostile rejection of the (again, reaffirmed-many-times-over consensus) interpretation of NSPORT in a very demeaning response(*) at a prior RfC (which itself confirmed consensus!), demands quite a bit more scrutiny of this close than what has been suggested so far.
(*)
Your comment is based on multiple false premises. NSPORT specifically requires article subjects meet GNG This is so false I suspect you haven't actually read NSPORT or N. To quote the big bold text at the top of NSPORT: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (emphasis original). You incorrectly interpret policy on the talk page of that policy, and yet you seem to think that making more and more restrictive rules will improve compliance? Call me suspicious.
Comment I think this was a difficult close and a difficult discussion. The RfC is titled "Abolish the current version of NSPORTS" and subsequent proposals largely attempted to narrow the discussion. The vast majority of editors did not support that initial proposal. The challenge became, as the closer mentioned, "most editors lost interest" in the sub-proposals and there was no initial discussion/survey on what the community actually thinks is a problem with NSPORT. Some editors expressed concerns that there are too many articles about sportspeople, others expressed concern that there are too many stubs based solely on databases, and the initial proposer stated that a problem was that too many editors at AFD just say passes N(insert sport) without examining the actual sources used. Because there were differing understandings of the problem (and the scope of those problems), the sub-proposals were all over the place. Each sub-proposal sought to address what one editor thought would address the problem or as a potential compromise to a previous sub-proposal. These sub-proposals, if adopted, may or may not work well together. My issue with the close is that closer saw all of the sub-proposals as discrete discussions and not how they interacted with each other. An example of this is the closer's discussion of proposal 4. If Proposal 3 were to reach consensus, proposal 4 should not be closed as "no consensus" but closed as moot. Similarly, I don't think the closer considered whether editors would still support proposal 3 if proposal 5 were to pass or what implications if any the two proposals have with each other and the SNG as a whole. I also agree with comments that the close did not anticipate implementation problems or propose tentative ways forward that could unite the community. --Enos733 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is the complaint I made regarding subproposal 1 on the talk page before being pointed to this discussion. I outlined the closing statement's total misrepresentation of subproposal 1, the existing consensus on NSPORT, and the consensus (or lack thereof) within the subproposal discussion. I am deeply concerned that the closing statement's faulty evaluation of NSPORT's purpose/consensus interpretation could be used to rewrite NSPORT as entirely independent of GNG (or at least strongly encourage its interpretation as such), when the proposal that actually aimed to do that completely failed. I would ask BilledMammal to please reconsider his endorse in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing of proposal 5 with removing the "from inceptioin part" is not what the proposer meant and what the people were voting for. Therefore such radical change of the essential part of the proposal seems as a supervote. Also proposal three seems as a clear no consensus to me, especially if we compare it with an original proposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were also attempts to stonewall by complaining of a lack of legitimacy when "no new notice to the impacted sports projects" for the times new subproposals were created in the same discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, some of the apparent discrepancy between the consensus (or not) on the original proposal and the consensus (or not) on various subproposals might be explained if editors had !voted on the original proposal before other proposals were added. I don't see any real attempt by the closer to evaluate this question, but it seems a fairly fundamental flaw in the RfC process - I don't find it reasonable to expect editors to watchlist and recheck every RfC to which they contribute. In RfCs on other subjects, I have seen participating editors explicitly pinged when additional options or questions were added, if they contributed to a prior state of the question(s), but I didn't see any evidence of that in my skim of this RfC. FWIW, I am uninvolved in the RfC/subject area: while I read the close thoroughly (many passages more than once), I have only skimmed the original bludgeoningchaos discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the accusation of bludgeoning is appropriate. I made less comments than other editors, and RandomCanadian made around the same number of comments as many other editors. Further, most of the comments made by myself and other editors with high comments was not to argue against other positions in response to the proposals, but in response to general discussions, to ask for clarification, to clarify ones own position, and more. Finally, it is always appropriate to raise concerns about canvassing, even if not all editors agree that it is canvassing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closer did the best job they could, but the sheer number of subproposals in an RfC of that size is going to be problematic. It's fair to say that in a discussion the length of a novel subproposal #5 of #10 probably isn't going to get as much scrutiny as it should for a contentious change of this magnitude. Hut 8.508:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe there was consensus in favour of proposal 3, and this is the one that has the biggest ramifications – i.e. the removal of most of the criteria in WP:NSPORTS, leaving many sportseople with no SNG. I would like to see this part of the close overturned to no consensus, or at the very least, reopened and reclosed by a panel. Number5708:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole RfC was a rambling mess that initially had lots of contributors, but then tailed-off into 12 different proposals. I think it is very hard to come to a firm consensus taking into account all of the initial discussion along with the later sub-proposals and how editors would agree with a certain proposal only if another one failed. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly endorse - the close was a very good summary of the discussions that took place, and also reflective of the broad consensus of the community dating back to the 2017 RFCs which established the prior guideline. My one objection, as alluded to by Alivich above, is that in finding no consensus for proposal #1, the closer has misrepresented the status quo ante. The 2017 RFCs clearly established the need for sports bios to meet GNG, this requirement has never been repealed, and nor should it be repealed through a discussion which resulted in no consensus. While some AFDs and DRVs may fail to adhere to this principle, many others (again, as noted by Avilich) followed exactly that principle, deleting articles which met NSPORTS but did not appear to meet GNG. The goal should be to crystallize the guidelines so that DRVs which don't match guidelines, like the one the Wugapodes linked to in their close summary, do not occur again. I have to say, the attempt by some editors to cast doubt on this close (without even having brought it here for review themselves) through edit warring the changes made and dismissing the whole RFC as a "rambling mess" is not what I consider good etiquette. WP:DROPTHESTICK already - the community has spoken, and the NSPORT guidelines as we've known them are going to be changed. This is long overdue anyway IMHO. — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in hindsight, given the scope and size of the RFC, a panel should probably have closed - and then, like I have suggested multiple times, actually implement the close. Letting the community do it is clearly not working. There has been an edit war and the page is now protected to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman10:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Black Kite below that the close of #3 was probably wrong. There was consensus for NSPORTS to be tightened, but not for sports to be entirely removed. GiantSnowman10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was difficult to close as it was (as mentioned above) a big rambling mess, but I have to say that I can't see consensus for Proposal 3 - it's not far off 50-50. Also, one thing that seems to have escaped a lot of people in that discussion is that the "one professional appearance" criteria is actually designed to prevent lots and lots of stubs - removing it could ironically increase the number, as there will be plenty of players who have only ever played in semi-professional leagues who have coverage ... Black Kite (talk)10:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, but your comment here suggests you may be missing the point of these changes. The goal is not to "prevent lots and lots of stubs", it is merely to remove stubs where no significant sourcing exists and which can therefore never be expanded into any sort of sizeable article. If someone from the semi-professional leagues has coverage, then they meet our definition of notability and are eligible for an article (or at the very least a paragraph somewhere per WP:NOPAGE), while if a professional player does not have any coverage at all then they should not have one, irrespective of which league they play in. This principle applies pretty much across the whole project, and the change brought about by this RFC merely reaffirms that it applies to sports people too. — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amakuru, and would add that I don't believe I've ever seen NSPORTS used as Black Kite suggests it has been used - to support the deletion of an article that would otherwise meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been used in that way because that would go against what is written at WP:N, which states that notability is presumed on passing either an SNG or GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is again entirely missing the point regarding NSPORT and GNG. NSPORT explicitly does ultimately require GNG (as do many other SNGs, for example NCORP or NASTRO), as affirmed in 2017 and re-affirmed here. People ignoring that is those people's problem and maybe a lack of clarity issue. But it's not one where the guidelines are contradictory - unless you deliberately attempt to interpret them as such. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point of the comment and my reply. Even if a subject fails an SNG it can still be presumed notable under GNG, that was what I was pointing out. NemesisAT (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm missing the point, because the proposal dealing with the issue of insufficient sourcing is Subproposal 5, which clearly did have consensus, and no-one is complaining about; I'm talking about Subproposal 3, the appearances SNG. It's all very well saying that someone "with coverage meets our definition of notability"; but we're talking about the minutiae of sports coverage here. The prof appearances SNG was designed to at least stem the flow of badly-sourced bios which might have marginal notability through providing a specific metric. Black Kite (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subproposal 5, which clearly did have consensus, and no-one is complaining about Some people are definitely complaining about it -- there's one such comment above. --JBL (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This analysis seems flawed. The close explained very well why it wasn't a headcount – arguments citing lack of replacement were given less weight because the replacement guideline already exists at GNG (also SPORTCRIT and BASIC) – and NSPORT participation criteria have not routinely served the described function. wjematherplease leave a message...13:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Amakuru. It would be great if the unfortunate characterization in the close of proposal 1 could be amended. --JBL (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say I thought that Wugapodes was brave to take on the RfC to try and close it himself. Maybe a new user group needs to be added to wikipedia, one that deals with editing policy/guideline project pages. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closure accurately reflects consensus on a very complex series of proposals and counter proposals. Wugapodes should be commended for taking this on.
The problem is not with the closure, but with the next step - figuring out how to implement consensus on such a complex series of proposals. That will probably take some follow-up RFC’s. There is no rush. Take it slowly and deliberately. We will get there eventually. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the bludgeoning has been from the beginning of the RfC, including accusing editors of canvassing when they notified the affected WikiProjects (which is funny now that their tune is "there was an RfC that everyone could attend so if you didn't that's your problem".) --SuperJew (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that I was a participant in the discussion. I'm not seeing the consensus on subproposal three and feel that one should have been no consensus. That being said I think overall the closer has done a good job given the complexity of the discussion. NemesisAT (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (involved in the RFC), mostly I think it was a good close, but I just do not see how proposal three had a consensus and suggest that one be overturned (to "no consensus"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Endorse Mostly the close seems fine, although a few elements (subproposal 1, mostly, as argued) might need a few corrections. The issue around proposal 3 mostly seems to have been lack of clarity around its implementation (the close seems procedurally fine, and the reasoning is well explained, and there is nothing preventing closers from giving less weight to some arguments when they are not very persuasive); and maybe a bit of an adverse reaction to the edit warring. I've attempted to move towards a constructive non-confrontational resolution to that on the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Implementing_the_RfC_-_participation_criteria_-_interim_status), so hopefully that should give a pause to such concerns. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think that it was a good close. The fact that comments above ranged from "too cautious" to "not cautious enough" reinforces that. The inevitable challenges are not related to the close and are two-fold:
A result that many people won't like. It's only human that some might wiki-lawyer nit-pick it. Others could do various things to prevent or mire down implementation.
Implementation is much more complex because the subject wording is embedded in many many places in the guideline.
Comment terrible close, way too many discussions open, and BilledMammal and RandomCanadian dominated discussion with hundreds of comments to push their pointed agenda. There was no consensus from the community, there was push back against sports users commenting. The whole thing was a joke and should be overturned and handled in a completely different way going forward.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of attempting to belittle other editors as fanatics with a pointed agenda and dismiss the whole thing as a joke, you'd better stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and instead attempt to back-up your assertions with facts. Problem is, once you do look at those facts, what you are saying is about as utterly ridiculous as it gets. The page statistics are incomplete (as this was moved part-way through); but extrapolating a bit, and looking at the amount of added bytes (instead of the raw number of edits, which can give misleading impressions due to various factors), there is no single editor or group of editors who overwhelmed the discussion (between the time the page was moved and when it was closed, the page size grew from 350ish kb to nearly 850kb, but the top 10 editors (including editors who were very much opposed to the proposal, like Bagumba or Nfitz, or more moderate, like Cbl), only contributed, all 10 together, to less than half of that... In light of that, your comment seems more like a generic grievance against the idea of the RfC as a whole (and probably it's result) than an actual valid reason why the close would be incorrect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me User:RandomCanadian, when you raised me at AN - I only just saw this. Personally, I didn't even read the last few weeks about it - it jumped the shark after about the 4th proposal - and the argument that there should be no notification to those at NSPORTS and related projects because they might be biased was very bizarre, and should alone have voided the entire process; I see no consensus on any of it, merely a handful trying to push a minority position through bludgeoning. Though that would be an opinion, and you and I were not the ones asked to contribute to this discussion - which you all seem to be bludgeoning none-the-less. Nfitz (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: You've commented more in this closure review than RandomCanadian (nine comments to eight). Neither of you are bludgeoning, though, as neither of you are dominating the conversation or replying to most comments. However, WP:BLUDGEON does state To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided and I would suggest you are more cautious when making such accusations in the future - I also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashion London where you accuse me of bludgeoning for making two comments. BilledMammal (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very disingenuous count, User:BilledMammal, as there is only a single post from me about the review - which didn't even take a position, merely noted that the review should be by those uninvolved. The other posts were in a separate sub-thread about freezing NSPORTS until the review was finished - which also entirely neutral. Though I hadn't intended to single out RC; I'll adjust my pronoun. To be honest there is similar from all sides. It's a systemic problem that those at a review spend more time arguing the case, than reviewing the close - DRV is plagued with such issues. Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering only this section, at the time of my previous comment you had two comments and RandomCanadian had four - neither of you are bludgeoning. Even editors with higher post counts, such as NemesisAT (seven) are not bludgeoning. However, you are too quick to accuse editors that you disagree with of bludgeoning, as are some of the other editors in this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (took part in subproposal 1 and 5, came from WP:NSPORTS talk). I believe the close reflected the rough consensus (or lackthereof) at the RfC, and I think North8000's comment helps explain why the close is being challenged. I just read subproposal 3 in its integrality, and while the split is 60-40 to support the proposal without looking at the arguments, the judgement by the closer to give little weight to "no replacement"-type votes, because they are not substantial but procedural in nature, is in my opinion valid. When taken together, as the closer correctly asserts, proposals 3 and 4 show a community consensus to dispense with participation-based criteria. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also note a strong WikiProject Football turnout in this discussion due to this discussion, referenced above. To all future editors, kindly disclose where you came from if you participate in this discussion and whether you previously participated in the RfC. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that editors at this review need to disclose whether they were involved or not. Those who "got what they wanted" would be happy with the results, and those who opposed the results would be unhappy. This review needs a lot more uninvolved users to take a look. Sorry, to follow my own disclosure ask: I heard about this RfC from the NFL WikiProject, but did not participate in the RfC. Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "clear consensus" is a bit of a stretch. Also, you ought to disclose your (very significant) involvement in the discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (uninvolved) Main issue I see with the close is with Subproposal 3, described as a "rough consensus". I believe this should be overturned as no consensus. The RfC was an unwieldy mess and the bludgeoning by those seeking to abolish NSPORTS may well have discouraged those with an opposing view from participating. Jevansen (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (uninvolved in the RfC) Seconding Jevansen - I was definately deterred from bothering to participate due to the bludgeoning by BilledMammal and (less so) by RandomCanadian - from the claims at the beginning of notifying WikiProjects being canvassing and bringing partisan editors, through the bludgeoning in the discussion itself, and also due to past interactions with them on AfDs which they've exhibited similar patterns. --SuperJew (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The most important part of the RfC, namely that database scrapes != biographies, plainly gained consensus because the remaining objections were procedural rather than substantial in nature. ReykYO!21:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I occasionally post at WT:FOOTY , but did not take part in the RfC. As mentioned above, my only issue with the RfC close is Subproposal 3, which I do not believe has consensus (it's around 55-45%, which isn't really enough on numbers to divert away from the status quo, but also that a number of the Support !votes there appeared to be under the incorrect impression that an SNG confers automatic notability, which it clearly doesn't). Black Kite (talk)23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, most people not engaged in writing one-line substubs already understand this. It's the defenders of such gunk who treat meeting their own SNG that tend to claim that SNG pass = automatic notability and unchallengeable exemption from sourcing requirements. At some point, when you're confronted with people who keep misinterpreting what SNG/SNG actually say at one AfD after another, you eventually decide, "Bugger it, we'll just redo the SNG." ReykYO!00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, I am clearly losing it in my old age and had completely forgotten that was the same RfC. Struck. Thanks for pointing it out. You will note that I was actually against the concept of SNGs in general, though, so I don't have an axe to grind about Prop.3. Black Kite (talk)08:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my count proposal 3 had a numerical count of 28 support to 22 oppose. However, at least one oppose was procedural (issues with not having a replacement), 1 oppose was changed to neutral and seemed to only oppose grandfathering in exceptions to #3, and 2 opposes were on the basis that this proposal didn't go far enough -- which is antithetical to the intent of the bulk of oppose !votes and should not be counted with them. There were also at least 3 comments that were supportive. So that leaves us with 28-18 at worst and 35-18 at best if we want to count opposes and comments. JoelleJay (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although uninvolved in the discussion, I agree with other editor's concerns above about the process of the RfC, particularly SuperJew and Jevansen - the discussion was an "unwieldy mess", the constant walls of text make it very difficult to follow, and the constant addition of sub-proposals surely didn't help either, which, alongside the bizarre accusations of WP:CANVASS and the seeming bludgeoning of the debate all surely limited participation from the WP:SPORTS community in a way that is not helpful for reaching a broad consensus on the matter. I also agree that the closer was incorrect to close subproposal #3 as a consensus, when there was a roughly-even split of !votes, and would support closing as no consensus or a reopening of the discussion. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the implementation of proposal 3, the consensus was rough and the discussion much less well attended than proposal 1. The whole RFC was substantially expanded midway into many proposals which made it a trainwreck when people who had voiced their opinion at proposal 1 would have assumed that their participation had been enough. There was also substantial bludgeoning which put off good faith editors. I think I made 1 comment at proposal 3 or it may have been at proposal 1. The solution in my opinion is to allow each wikiproject to craft their own sng and if there is goodfaith opposition then have a seperate RFC for each one rather than slamming them all into one RFC which would be another trainwreck. Also leaving it to the noisiest editors at the WP:NSPORTS talkpage is just a recipe for another edit war, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Let's allow ask each WikiProject to create SNGs on their own, so that they can make them as extensive as possible in order to make everyone notable. Let's just hope that WikiProject Royalty and Nobility doesn't make their SNG so broad that the daughters of cadet branches of minor lords who die in infancy suddenly become notable! Pilaz (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could assume good faith and realise that also most editors form WikiProjects want to include notable players on Wikipedia. If you follow football articles and AfDs you'll see that in almost all cases of a player scraping through NFOOTY, but not passing GNG, the article is deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to close, yes, but also the truest type of consensus discussion, which is truly about discussion, compromise, and meeting the legitimate concerns of others. I think, substantively, the entire analysis does represent the consensus position, in which a very large number of editors participated, expressed concerns, and tried to reach compromises. Wugapodes's analysis seems to have correctly extracted the parts editors agreed on the most. That doesn't mean everyone agreed on them, and different people will disagree on different parts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment I appreciate the comments so far, though like others I was hoping for more input from uninvolved editors. So far the concerns seem focused on proposals 1 and 3. The concern with the close of proposal 1 seems to center around whether the result of a 2017 RfC should still be considered controlling in light of the no-consensus close, and whether the close should be revised to reflect that. The concern with the close of proposal 3 is whether the consensus result accurately reflects the discussion. Further discussion from uninvolved editors would be helpful in revising the close and determining next steps. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the community has finished talking about this. The close of this RfC needs to be understood as the staging point that will lead to a more focused attempt at progress. The community is not happy about sports notability. Personally, I feel that the RfC outcome as determined by Wugapodes reflects the nose count but is hard to reconcile with our strict rules about sourcing biographies of living people.—S MarshallT/C10:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request The review was a request, particularly from uninvolved editors. Yet what I see is a lot of comments from involved editors - including ones that bludgeoned the RFC itself. Is there a way to tag those who are involved (perhaps by striking), to better understand what uninvolved editors think? (I'm involved). Nfitz (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment I have revised the close of proposal 1 to clarify the reasoning and suggest next steps on how to resolve the propblem of how to interpret the relationship between NSPORTS and the GNG. Editors here are split on proposal 3 variously endorsing it or saying it should be overturned to no consensus. Further review or a close of this discussion by uninvolved editors would be helpful in resolving that aspect of the close. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des01:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since no 'uninvolved editors' have commented further on this, I'll say that I endorse Pilaz's analysis of closure 3: the procedural arguments ("no replacement") discounted, there was a clear consensus for the current outcome, which already had a majority supporting it anyway. Avilich (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request for reevaluation of subproposal 1 closing statement
Following several unfruitful discussions at Wugapodes' talk page, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to please review the subproposal 1 closing statement with respect to the following:
1. What Wugapodes asserts is the purpose of proposal 1 (whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG) versus the context and stated intent of the proposal (All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD).
2. His assessment of overall !voter sentiment, and specifically whether we should assume all opposition (re: The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding) is to his version of proposal 1 whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG or to the proposed restriction of when notability is challenged at AfD. I would like to point to this comment by an oppose !voter to challenge the assumption that !voters were unaware of the distinction between the two: There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now"
3. How faithfully the rest of his statement reflects the status quo ante consensus interpretation of NSPORT as discussed in the proposal, including whether his conclusions are accurate given the strength of the arguments. I would appreciate particular attention to his invoking one undiscussed DRV outcome while ignoring all of those brought up in the discussion, and his claim that the NSPORT guideline only says subjects "should" and not "must" meet GNG without acknowledging that multiple editors in the discussion had pointed out a place where NSPORT does say "must".
4. Whether the existence of proposal 11, Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, implying the current NSPORT guideline is in fact dependent on GNG, should be entirely disregarded as evidence of a pre-existing consensus.
5. The merits of his conclusion that a) all opposition to proposal 1 was opposition to his version of the proposal scope, and therefore was a direct rejection of the interpretation of NSPORT that places it ultimately subordinate to GNG; b) the ~35–45% opposition to proposal 1 means the above interpretation was not the consensus before the RfC; and c) that opposition is sufficient to overturn a consensus if it was in place beforehand.
6. Whether it appropriate for him, despite acknowledging majority support, to unilaterally fail part 1 of subproposal 8 (Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG.) on the basis The first part was substantially similar to proposal 1. ... To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus. Proposal 1 was better attended and did not find consensus, so proposal 8 is not sufficient to overturn that. Was his assessment that this proposal and proposal 1 are materially equivalent accurate given the proposals' wording/arguments and in the context of the existing NSPORT text? JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Apologies for any formatting issues, I'm on mobile at work) I very much appreciate the substantial amendments Wugapodes made to his close, however I still strongly dispute equating opposition to the proposal with opposition to the select interpretation of it he has ascribed to oppose !voters (that is, that they were specifically against the premise of GNG (already) being ultimately required) when that was NOT what most !voters understood the proposal to be. A closer should not be assigning intent to ambiguous !votes, especially if it is then used to justify weakening a statement that was not even under review. Only 15 out of 70+ !votes were even ambiguous enough to possibly be interpreted as opposing the GNG requirement itself, that is very far from a "no consensus" on that question! JoelleJay (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Process questions
A few editors raised process-related questions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that are going to come back up regardless of how this is closed. It would help to have some admin eyes on the page to make sure that folks are raising legitimate concerns rather than stonewalling.
Which changes are to be implemented immediately and which require further discussion? Should we delete participation-based criteria immediately or wait until replacements have been agreed on? Should this decision be left to the relevant wikiprojects?
Is there consensus to "gut" or heavily trim sections of NSPORTS? Is this constructive, disruptive or a back-door attempt to abolish the guideline?
Who may implement the changes that have consensus? Must it be the closer? May it be editors who were heavily involved in the discussion? Should it be someone who's completely uninvolved? Is the closer obligated to oversee the process? –dlthewave☎04:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on these. (1) Generally changes should be implemented as quickly as possible, but not necessarily immediately if there turn out to be practical problems. For the participation-based criteria specifically, if a wikiproject is actively working on replacements then it might make sense to wait for that, but in general any future replacements can just be added back later since either way they'd need consensus to implement. (2) Yes. Participants in the general discussion pointed out that while the guideline as a whole should not be deprecated, problems with the guideline should be fixed through editing and rewriting. (3) In my experience anyone has been able to implement RfC closures, but that seems to have failed here. How we fix that is a useful point of discussion. I'm willing to help oversee the implementation (regardless of the review outcome), but I think the more help from uninvolved editors here the better. — Wug·a·po·des05:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the process questions, yes, implement immediately (unless there was literally a replacement being discussed atm) - because GNG will always be available, so it's not a case where we'd be severing entirely. While it's a major re-write, it still leaves significant aspects present, and guidance for further re-writes. As to implementation, usually it can be anyone, with a preference for the closer, but in controversial aspects like this, perhaps best to go for an uninvolved individual(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) As someone that spends a sizeable amount of my time here helping out at ANRFC, the idea a precedent would be set where closers are in any way responsible for implementing or overseeing changes outside of admin action-required closes (like deletion discussions) seems very bad to me. Editors failing to follow WP:BRD (or in other words, seek consensus if their edits are getting reverted) in this case does not mean the closer needs to come in and supervise. Other dispute resolution processes are available, even if one would feel they're heavy-handed right after an RfC. Right now it seems like many supporters of the previous NSPORTS version before the RfC wish to re-litigate it, but I'm sure that's just the pain that comes with removing a band-aid rather than a serious concern that will continue over weeks. FOOTY seem to be coming around to a more constructive mindset, for example. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!15:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Involved in the RfC, mere IP user (obvs).) Strongly agree with the observation about setting a bad precedent. And a tremendously ad hoc one, too: I don't recall anyone suggesting ahead of time or even during the process that the closer would single-handedly have such a responsibility, and that anyone else doing so would constitute an entitlement to revert to the "last good version" (... that a community decision has just determined is not the "good version"). Or they'd be insulted on their talk page for their trouble. Or that a "panel" would be required to do such a thing. Or that any change needs a huge supermajority -- one not evinced in NSPORT's original adoption. I won't presume to know the motivations behind such actions, but their consequences seem highly unlikely to be constructive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of creating new SSG guidance I feel like there needs to be an aggressive but reasonable timeframe put forth for the projects to put this in place - maybe April 15 or 30. To do this thoughtfully and based on data takes time and we are all volunteers so not like folks are putting in 40 hours a week on this. I also think we need to clarify up front what the approval process is for the new criteria. I would very much like to suggest that uninvolved editors be brought in to review any new proposed SSG criteria. As a mostly sports editor I am very willing to have non-sports folks evaluate the criteria but for many folks who were active in the discussion I can no longer assume good faith based on their words and actions in that RfC. That group should not have the "final say" on the SSG criteria - it is not a neutral body. To have input, of course, is reasonable. Rikster2 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you come out of the blocks with an RfC titled "Abolish NSPORTS" (not "reform," or "substantially reduce" but "abolish), or if you restated your point and over 140 times at the RfC (just at that page, it was split out many times over many pages so the number is much higher), or if you spend the majority of your Wikipedia life at AfD and vote delete nearly every time (often with a demonstrated lack of WP:BEFORE), then you forfeited your right to be seen as an independent actor in this. I am not saying that sports project's proposals should not be reviewed. I am just saying that the folks who put so much effort into getting rid of the guidance shouldn't be the majority of the final arbiters of the new standards that are meant to truly reflect GNG. You guys are as biased as the permastub kings. I am just suggesting that knowledgeable, unaffiliated editors ought to play a big part in implementation if at all possible. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rikster2 you've linked JPL's stats (which, if I was ABFing like you, I would have to conclude was deliberate misdirection), and both you and him appear to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, to which I frankly wish to have no part in. Take it to the WP:CESSPIT if you wish to keep casting WP:ASPERSIONS about others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am just going to reiterate my request to have independent unaffiliated editors be the ones to sign off on any new SSG recommendations. This was a reasonable request and is a genuine area of concern for me and for others. I think it's pretty obvious why. Also, no misdirection. I linked what I intended to link. I didn't say those were your contributions, if that is what you are implying. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your request is moot since, if agreement on consensus cannot be reached, discussions will get closed by an uninvolved 3rd party. Having said that, you do give the impression of wanting non subject matter experts to assess and adjudicate on the proposals, bypassing wider community scrutiny involving those you have issues with, which simply isn't going to happen. wjematherplease leave a message...17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are being absurd as I have said nothing of the sort. What I am asking for is Wikipedia editors who understand notability and can gauge if an SSG meets it but who have not already expressed a depply held opinion that sports notability is "a problem" to be the decision-making body. I have a legitimate concern that I and others will put in a good amount of time and energy crafting new guidelines in good faith and if the audience that has to agree to it is 100% the same as the one who proposed "abolishing NSPORTS" (or voted to affirm that original recommendation) then that is pretty unfair - there should be fresh eyes on it. I have said (more than once if you care to read) that all should be able to comment. Rikster2 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, decisions are made by consensus, not "decision-making bodies"; closer(s) will only evaluate consensus, not any proposed criteria. If we have what you still appear to be requesting, we'd probably end up with another RFC proposing the abolition of NSPORT pretty rapidly. wjematherplease leave a message...19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were replying to me, and while my guess is that it was an innocent mistake/lack of clarity, it's still not a very productive kind of comment nor a good way to move things forward, if you argue that some editors are so biased as to be unable to provide a balanced take on things - again, this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's better if everyone is invited to take part in building a new compromise if the previous situation was not acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There were six experienced editors edit-warring on a policy page. Locking it was absolutely correct. I suppose the admin could have partial blocked them all, but then someone else might have come along and carried it on. Absolutely correct decision, and I would have done the same myself. Black Kite (talk)15:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another option, that's not a "pox on all your houses" option, would have been to warn the editors who were editing directly against an RfC result (reinstating content that the RfC said should have been removed). Someone also could have said something to the admin who edited against the RfC result and reinstated the content the RfC said should have been removed with the very specious and unfounded claim that an RfC result can only be implemented by someone who didn't vote in the RfC. Also, it's good you didn't protect the page since you voted in the RfC. Sometimes, when a bunch of experienced editors are edit warring, it's because half of them are wrong and being disruptive. Sometimes being a good admin means figuring that out and not using the tools in a blanket way. Levivich15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Levich, I agree that this wasn't a "both sides" thing, the problem was that editors were restoring the previous version against the RfC consensus. I've given warnings to the four editors who did this. I'm also surprised that the edit requests to implement subproposals #3 and #8 have gone unanswered as the close has not been overturned. –dlthewave☎17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being "right" is not an exemption from 3RR/EW per WP:3RRNO, so you should be warning all of them, or none of them. Also, you are completely involved, so shouldn't be warning them at all, especially in such a passive-aggressive way. I am unsurprised that some have kicked back against your warnings. Black Kite (talk)18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and, even if anybody had been naughty (and they haven't) what sanctions are there going to be 48 hours later?! This conduct from Dlthewave has served no purpose but to annoy people and enflame an already volatile situation. GiantSnowman21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, my concern is that editors might continue to restore the current non-consensus version after page protection expires. This discussion does not preclude implementing the consensus which was reached at the RfC; the closing statement stands until it is overturned or retracted. I'm also quite baffled by some of the process-related objections which are still being raised: When did it become policy or practice that an involved editor should not implement consensus changes or issue warnings; that a close should not be implemented if it's under review; or that editors implementing that consensus are just as disruptive as those who edit against it? ANI is the next step if this disruptive editing continues. –dlthewave☎03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you are sharpening your tools to rush in with your non-consensus preferred version of NSPORTS when protection expires, even though an ongoing discussion on that guidelines Talk page doesn't support that course of action at this time? Am I understanding you correctly? You have heard of collaborative projects and norms, hey? Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being right doesn't exempt Muboshgu from WP:INVOLVED either. He should not have protected the page. This is not a quibble or technicality but a bright line rule.—S MarshallT/C01:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was not involved in the RfC, but was involved in the discussion about implementation of the RfC after I became aware of it. My concerns were, and are, that "rough consensus" of the editors who took part in the RfC clearly didn't translate into a meaningful consensus of interested editors, and that implementation of the decision was done disruptively and left the page nonsensical and useless, with fragments of old policies left stranded out of context and incomprehensible. When challenged, some of the editors who left this trail of destruction challenged those who objected to clean up the mess they had left. It was a clear example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reprotect NSPORTS
It looks like the protection on WP:NSPORTS expired, and there's further attempts to edit NSPORTS without a closure of the discussion here. Can someone reprotect it until there's full consensus? Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - If anything, it is this version that should be protected. The RfC close stands until it is overturned, and subproposals 5 and 8 can be implemented immediately since there is no question of how they should be written or need for replacement text. I would note that subproposal 3, which is currently under discussion about how best to implement, has not been reinstated. Nfitz, please self-revert this edit which removes consensus content. –dlthewave☎21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply going back to the previous frozen version from when the RfC close review started - as per WP:QUO. How is that version any different than this version which is from someone who is very much involved. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nfitz. NSPORTS should be protected until this review is closed and there is a clear consensus on the remaining issues. There should be no rush to make changes to NSPORTS, regardless of how "unanimous" they seem. WP:NODEADLINE. Natg 19 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There may be no deadline, but we're not going to talk about it forever, either. This RFC was open for two months. The implementation of the RFC is not subject to the consensus of NSPORTS editors. This RFC review is the last stop on this train. Unless the result is overturned, the RFC outcome will be implemented, without waiting for any further discussion. Local consensus will not overcome global consensus. This is our way. Levivich21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the way. But the way is also to wait. (though I doubt very much if this is the last stop! This has been simmering away for many years - and isn't the first RFC on the subject). Besides, the RFC was to delete NSPORTS - with umpteem follow-up proposals and severe bludgeoning, I really don't know how that RFC has any clear outcomes ... but as I'm involved, it is bad form for me to offer my opinion here. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt Nfitz conveniently fails to mention here that the changes he's reverting have unanimous talk page consensus, reached after the first page protection, and are not themselves part of the current review. Since there is no non-procedural case against these particular changes, WP:NOTBURO applies here and the normal editorial process should be allowed to continue unimpeded. Avilich (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many editors even found that brief discussion? It's certainly not consensual. The discussion is at WP:AN - where, I note, involved editors shouldn't even be participating - something that you seem to have taken as an invitation to violate 44 minutes later. There is NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody aside from you seems to think I violated anything by posting here. I did not even cast a formal endorse/overturn vote, just pointed out one of the contentions ahead of everyone else, which at least one uninvolved person took notice of and agreed with. That was my only substantive post before you started this edit war. Avilich (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now can you restore the stable version? The changes he was reverting had been discussed on the talk page: the process was working exactly as intended after the first page protection, until he came along. Muboshgu effectively took his side again by locking the page in Nfitz's preferred revision. Avilich (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this limited change should be implemented as per sub-proposal 8. I also fully support the full-protection of NSPORTS to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection is a reasonable response as well. Muboshgu and I just seem to have acted at the same time in different ways. I left a talk page message for them to try and work out next steps. — Wug·a·po·des22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can an uninvolved Admin please revert User:Wugapodes's blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED, and explain to them that they are very much involved with NSPORTS! Not that I have any intention of further editing the page for 24-hours given the 3RR bright line, which I never crossed. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those three diffs are "closing", the close, and revising the close. I was AGFing that closing the RFC wasn't what you were relying on to claim WP:INVOLVED, since that would clearly be exempted by the second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED. Also, the third paragraph exemption would apply, seeing as you re-re-reverted immediately after responding to an edit warring warning. In that situation, even an admin bot would have partially-blocked you, that's how clear it was. I see now you've asked "so how did I ask for protection first?", whereas your OP in this subsection was "...Can someone reprotect it until there's full consensus?", so we can all see that you asked for protection first, then made 3 2 more reverts, the third second coming after an edit warring warning that you were aware of. Did you think because you claimed "involved", you could re-re-revert and Wug wouldn't be able to block you? If so, you thought wrong. Your account is 16 years old; you've been indef'd and tban'd and otherwise sanctioned before; you know or should know the edit warring rules, and the INVOLVED rules, by now. Levivich23:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've never received an Admin warning for an "edit war" before - though Alex had a go at me once, - I haven't even looked at the policy for years. My impression was it was 3RR, but not necessarily 3RR for long-running or when people are gaming 3RR; which is why I'd have never have broken 3RR; perhaps policy has shifted over time (which is fine). Either way, time to move on. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this even a big issue for you? You can't edit NSPORTS for 36 hours, which you can't even do since the page is now protected. Either way, the reasoning is straightforward: don't edit war or violate 3RR. I don't see that Wugapodes did anything wrong here. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's protected? Missed that ... all the more reason to revert the block. In the past, I've had nonsensical blocks ... which were then used against me much later. It's a reasonable request surely to have the reversion on the record. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was quite a correct block for edit-warring. FFS, even if you think the close for this particular point was wrong, that doesn't give you the right to revert to the former consensus and edit-war over it. The AN thread is right here, if you don't like that element of the close and want to challenge it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting the page to prevent edit warring is an easy stopgap, and of course anyone who edit wars should be warned or blocked, but it would be really helpful if admins could weigh in on which proposals have consensus and specifically admonish editors who go against it. There's also no reason not to implement this edit request immediately and I'm concerned that Muboshgu's "not done" response focuses on editor behavior instead of content. –dlthewave☎02:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, being "right" is not an exemption from edit-warring per WP:3RRNO. The closing admin as asked for feedback above, I suggest it would be a better use of everyone's time to provide that. Black Kite (talk)19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regard edit warring, the process is to discuss disputes, possibly go to an RFC, and if it's big to go to a large scale RFC and decide. Oh wait, we just did that. :-) This implementation is (probably unprecedentedly) complicated and I think it's fine to play it safe and wait for the close review. But then editing against something that is clearly only an RFC implementation is a conduct issue regarding that person, not simple a 2 way edit war. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today reportedly a Wikipedian was arrested in Belarus for editing Russian Wikipedia. (He is a former arb there but not an admin). It was also reported that there is a channel on Telegram which is doxxing editors of the Russian Wikipedia who are introducing edits not in line with the government policy (specifically for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the official standpoint of Russia is that this is not a war or invasion, but a special operation which protects Russia from NATO, and that Russia does not bomb Ukrainian cities but instead targets military installations with high-precision weapons, the number of casualties is zero). I am pretty sure they will start doxxing us soon. Not sure what we can do about it, and not sure this is the best place to post, but the community probably wants to be aware of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This makes us realise that most arguments on Wikipedia are very trivial when compared to matters such as this. I live in a liberal democracy that is a member of NATO, so can speak my mind reasonably freely compared to some others, so would not presume to give advice to any editors in Russia or Belarus, or Ukraine for that matter, except to say that anyone should know the possible consequences before writing anything. If you want to risk your life and/or liberty than you should go into it with open eyes. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to note that the OP has often been accused (although I have not seen an instance where the accusation is valid) of being a pro-Putin stooge. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read what I wrote properly. I am not spreading rumours and have said nothing that is beneath me. Many false accusations have been made, as I'm sure Ymblanter himself would confirm. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I don't know why you even mentioned them. I guess you meant well, but if you felt you had to mention them you should have said "You may wish to note that the OP has often been falsely accused..." - which is not the same as "Although I have not seen an instance where the accusation is valid". Maybe it's just me, but I see a difference in my phrasing and yours. Doug Wellertalk11:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference. I mentioned it because the comment I was replying to implied that the incident of a Wikipedia editor being arrested might be pro-Ukrainian/Western propaganda, and I wanted the writer to know that Ymblanter's editing is neutral, and he doesn't push propaganda from either side. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I read it exactly the way Doug did and if I hadn't been on mobile I'd have said something. Saying "I think this thing is false" does strike me as meaningfully different than "I haven't seen evidence that this is true" and I think what Phil wrote here was more this second version that the first. Glad it got cleared up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I an sure everybody here acted in good faith. Concerning the verification, the arrest has been reported in reliable sources (I have only seen Russian language media, but I did not search broadly), and, for example, someone already added this material to our article on the Russian Wikipedia. I do not see any reasons for doubts here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this goes without saying, but if there is any attempted doxxing on-wiki, please email oversight to get it taken care of. If something needs to be removed in the meantime, use a neutral edit summary (not "removal of doxxing" or the like) to make it less obvious. We'd rather decline something borderline than miss something important.Primefac (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I join the discussion? Current situation in regard to the freedom of speech and the freedom of convey information in Russia is terrible.
The assisting the foreign or international organization in the activity directed against the security of Russian Federation is considered a treason (the article 275 of Russian Criminal Code). Editing Wikipedia's articles can be considered an assistance for the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. If the result of editing is dissemination of information unfavorable to Russia authorities, it could be considered "an activity directed against the security of Russia". And it doesn't matter whether this information has status "classified" or not. Treason is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 12 to 20 years.
The dissemination of fake information about the use of Russian Armed Forces is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 to 15 years (the article 207.3 of Russian Criminal Code). Any information from non-official government sources is considered fake.
The discrediting of Russian Armed Forces and its operations, including the calls for prevention of the use of Russian Armed Forces for interests of Russian Federation is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years (the article 280.3 of Russian Criminal Code).
At the moment, an amendment of the Russian Criminal Code to add into the articles 207.3 and 280.3 others "siloviki" being considered. In the event of the amendment being passed, "dissemination of fake information" and "discrediting ... including the calls for prevention of the use" will apply to Russian Federal Security Service, Russian National Guard, Russian Police, Russian Investigative Committee, Russian prosecutor's office, etc, and to operations of these agencies.
In fact, the democratic freedoms and the human rights got thrown overboard in Russia. And it's not temporary situation. Aforementioned laws are regular laws, not exraordinary, and it means these provisions will act always. Putin's Russia is de facto totalitarian state from now.
So, again, like I said, current Russian reality is all-too-grim and painful. The revival of Stalinism is finally realized. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Wikipedia is likely to trend in the direction of being Russian propaganda. Obviously a lot of its editors are from Russia. And from there, only pro-Kremlin editing is acceptable. Ugh. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This can be avoided. There are many Russian-speaking people in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Many of them fled Russia due to political atmosphere created by Putin. They can get special permissions and see to it that Russian Wikipedia will not become another tool of Putin's propaganda. We need to think about ways to make it. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that in a recent discussion there on whether they should have a banner backing Ukraine, 60% supported it - it was only the fact that they require 2/3 for such things that it wasn't implemented. Clearly, the Russian editor group is hardly the most putin-focused group Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please protect from editing by user:Veverve this page Russian fascism (ideology). I can also avoid editing the page to stop war editing. However, the user nominated the page for deletion and now they shorten it and vandal it (my own opinion) to make it look stupid and not notable. --Tsans2 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dot think user:Veverve edits are biased, and considering such a fragile and delicate topic as Russian fascism in the context of Russian invasion of Ukraine the decision should be quick. Tsans2 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is written: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." You have not warned me in any way, yet you have requested I get article-banned, accuse me of vandalism, disruptive editing and vandal [sic]. I have only been made aware of this ANM since I had a look at your edit history right now as I suspect you of being a POV-pusher.
Other users have thanked me for my removals. I have justified each of my removals of this article in the edit summaries. Nothing forbids me from editing an article while it is under AfD, see also WP:HEYMANN. I have also opened a discussion at Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Editing problems to explain how some of your recent edits are problematic.
Declined - Although if the edit warring worsens, I will be happy to dish out blocks. It isn't kosher to rush and revert to your preferred version, then quickly come ask for protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢14:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, you were reverting both before an after. Second, Veverve didn't nominate the article for deletion, another editor did, and whether or not it gets deleted, the nomination appears to be in good faith. Finally, you only have 62 edits and you are already at WP:AN pointing fingers (incorrectly) at well established editors. If any editor needs to be monitored, it would be you. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate gave me an odd translation (You are about to start the journey on the path to your success. etc), but couldn't translate one sentence of it. (Malayalam) Seemed like a copy paste, not "bad language". The IP has a dynamic address, so harder to follow (one more reason to get a registered account). As for reverting the IP on the Pokemon page, that edit seems perfectly legitimate, removing one small bit of unsourced "fact". Right or wrong, there seems to be good faith in the edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very bad language in Malayalam. They are also vandalizing pages related to actors and films and changing the reviews, box office etc.
Girth SummitDennis Brown
I don't speak Malayalam. Can you be specific about particular phrases which concern you? You will also need to provide diffs of what you assert is vandalism, if you want us to investigate it. GirthSummit (blether)14:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that this could, in fact, have been deleted. Despite Mjroots' adamant bold type on the matter, in fact a list of contributors could have been inserted in an edit summary (for example). It looks to me as if the AfD participants were given the wrong directions.—S MarshallT/C16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were 15 contributors before the splitting of the article, I can not reasonably see how they could be attributed in a meaningful way, and there was nothing even close to the consensus for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are bots but more importantly there is no requirement for attribution in a "meaningful way". The only requirement is for a list of contributors. This could be via an edit summary or as a list in the target articles. WP:ATTREQ makes it clear that both are acceptable albeit not preferred. The simplest solution IMO if editors really feel the current title is useless is probably to move the page somewhere else then properly annotated the relevant article histories to make it clear where the attribution has gone. If necessary, it could be made a subpage of one of the split targets or something else. Frankly I'm doubtful it's necessary to preserve the history after 2013-04-01 anyway, so the history could even be merged with Windmills in Jersey or List of windmills in Guernsey and the relevant other articles could be properly annotated. Personally it doesn't seem worth the effort, the article title isn't that bad, something meaningful can surely be done with it but I agree with S Marshall the idea we have to keep it at that exact title for attribution reasons isn't correct. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flatscan. The attribution requirement does not prevent us from taking the editorial decision to delete an article. In such cases, attribution can be provided in an alternative manner, as discussed above. I note that the attribution requirement is in actual practice seldom met because nobody has enough time to disentangle thousands of contributions in the history of an article with tens of thousands of edits and dozens of mergers to be able to determine who wrote a specific phrase, but we do not worry overmuch about this problem either. Sandstein 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avilich! Like others here, I use the automatic function to relist. It did not work for this particular AFD. This is probably why the AfD was relisted only once. Someone did complaint about that. I relisted manually, given the lively and ongoing conversation. Someone after me said that this could or should close as delete and stated as a reason that more people wanted to delete. I believe this is going in the delete direction and not only for the reason given. Initially it were mostly keeps, later mostly deletes. This too points at delete. I think that, absolutely, if this continues to be the case, the article should be deleted. On the other hand, relisting only once, with such a lively discussion is a problem. Give it another week and then, by all likelihood, this should be deleted. In discussions, we need to be fair and give a chance to all sides. I would appreciate if someone can check what went wrong with the AFD so this could not be automatically relisted! gidonb (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi gidonb. I think that there was already a legitimate consensus at that point, which, coupled with the procedural oddity and the long lifespan of that discussion, would make it more appropriate for an administrator to perform the close, or at least for a rationale to be provided for the relist. You will have seen that several people got upset and frustrated that this was extended yet again without any statement to justify the action. Avilich (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you raised it yourself, I do not think this frustration was justified in any way. We need to WP:AGF and give people a chance to have their say, especially if the discussion is lively, ongoing, and was relisted only once. Relisting was the correct way forward. Patience and respect for colleagues is important in a community project. I do think that this is heading in the direction of deletion. gidonb (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of my comment referred to the views displayed by other users in the discussion, not by me personally as I didn't comment on that there. Though again, I did find the lack of an accompanying summary a more than a bit baffling given the unusual circumstances. Avilich (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fairly regular closer of the most-overdue AFDs but due to the current ongoing unpleasantness around sports-biographies, I am no longer closing these AFDs until the GNG vs NSPORTS wars are settled. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, I totally understand your decision and hope that the greater WP community takes note that there is currently too much pressure around the sports AfDs and notability guidelines. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz If you look at the contribs of the user who relisted it on February 10 ([12]) it looks like they used XfDCloser to relist seven AfDs, but only two (the first and last) were properly transcluded to the February 10 list. These were two of the five that weren't, and I'm just checking the others now. Black Kite (talk)22:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the other three, one had been closed, I've just closed another, and the third has been relisted on today AfD log, so we're all good there. Black Kite (talk)22:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, you shouldn't be relisting a lot of AFD's in quick succession. Sometimes, an AFD with only two votes needs relisting, sometimes it does not. Some discretion has to go into the decision. Otherwise, we could just get a bot to do relists based on math, which is not what we want. We want judgement, which takes more than a few seconds. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article maintenance templates and drafts
Are article maintenance templates supposed to be used in drafts? I see them all the time, but it makes no sense to me, and I'm hesitant to remove them. What about short descriptions? Stub templates?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus, at least among AFC reviewers, is that they aren't really necessary in the Draft space, and there is a bot to remove a handful of these templates, but generally they're just removed by AFC reviewers. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These often originate from draftifying articles. That is, they get tagged in mainspace, then the article gets moved to draftspace. One exception is the COI or UPE templates, which I sometimes see draft reviewers place intentionally. I usually leave all these tags, especially short description and stub which are useful if the draft is moved back to mainspace. But to each their own. I believe almost all of these templates have code that detects draftspace and keeps drafts out of their hidden maintenance categories. So for example, using the template {{Lizard-stub}} in draftspace would not put the draft in Category:Lizard stubs –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if other noticeboards have been aware of this yet, but The Red Paintings keeps getting nominated by people speaking on behalf of the band, making spurious claims pushing for the article's deletion. These claims are mainly "they haven't recorded since 2013", "their music isn't on any digital platforms", and "there are minor inaccuracies in the article". So far, it's been sent to AFD twice by sockpuppet accounts, and both times I've closed the AFD discussion per WP:SNOW. User:Alan191919, User:Theredpaintings, and User:85.56.220.216 all seem to be involved in whitewashing the article; the former has been outed as a paid editor. Would an IP range block and/or indefinite semi-protection help to stop any of this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Call for experienced closer at RfC: Skeptical Inquirer
Could an uninvolved editor with experience in contentious closes please close Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer, either with an immediate snow close or(apparently the word "either" was too confusing...) after the usual 30 days?
The last substantive comment was four days ago on 10 March 2022 and further discussion is unlikely to change the result.
I am asking for a experienced closer for several reasons:
First, emotions are high on this one, and it is likely that whichever way it closes there will be accusations that it was closed with a WP:SUPERVOTE.
Second, there are open questions regarding wikipedia policy; can a source be biased yet still be generally reliable for supporting statements of fact? Is scientific skepticism Wikipedia's "house bias" as I contend in my essay at WP:YWAB?
I've also opened a request at WP:RFCL, though I think we can let it run the full month.
Second, there are open questions regarding wikipedia policy; can a source be biased yet still be generally reliable for supporting statements of fact? Is scientific skepticism Wikipedia's "house bias" as I contend in my essay at WP:YWAB? - the closer can't answer those questions. The first they might address in their close, based on the weight of arguments presented, but for the second you would need an RFC proposing to implement a "house bias".
Regarding the FoF, I believe Barkeep49 already addressed that question: The FoF is true. When this case closes there will be no community consensus on its general reliability. However you are obviously correct that there's a reasonable chance it would become quickly outdated if the RfC finds consensus other than "no consensus" and so I have added a sentence noting that RfC for people who read this case in the future. In other words, the RFC consensus applies, not the FoF. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also I guess I should underscore that ArbCom was not making a decision about the reliability of the Skeptical Inquirer. Such a decision would be outside its scope. ArbCom was instead stating what the current thinking in the community was. After this RfC the thinking will have evolved in some way which is fine - the decision is meant to be true at that point in time and not a living document. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why folks keep requesting closes here, when there exists a venue specifically for requesting closes. Also, there's no rush to close the discussion, might as well let it run the full time. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still mulling over the arguments, as well as looking through how the source is actually used on-wiki, but I (who opened the RfC) intend to make a !vote before it's over. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush to close it. Just let editors participate and, when the RfC tag is removed, someone will come along and close it. Isabelle🔔16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why everyone is assuming I asked for an immediate close when I made it clear that I don't care whether it runs 30 days or not, but "someone will come along and close it" is pretty much guaranteed to result in a huge shitstorm. I know a contentious RfC that needs an experienced closer when I see one. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that closure requests may only be made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I searched and could not find any such rule.
Sometimes it is more convenient to simply post a call for close in the discussion section of the RfC. I often do this when WP:SNOW clearly calls for an early close (Note: saying that you are OK with an early close or a full 30 days is not the same thing as calling for an early close.) but I can't do it myself because I am involved.
Sometimes WP:CR is the obvious right place to request a close, such as cases where the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear but pretty much any uninvolved closer should be able to close it without causing any further drama.
Sometimes, as is true in this case, you can look at the discussion and see the coming shitstorm from editors who didn't get their way and you need a closer with experience in contentious closes, not just the random closer you get at WP:CR. Usually this means an admin, but some veteran editors are experienced in contentious closes and can do the job. AN is a good place for this sort of request.
There are rare cases where a team of closers is needed. An example would be the Daily Mail RfC.
@Guy Macon: In your opening statement here you mention the discussion could be closed right now per WP:SNOW, which gives the appearance of wanting an early close. Although the discussed had died down (of course posting about it in a such visible place would of course lead to it receiving more comments), a close before the recommended 30 days seems counter-productive if the topic is controversial or the close is likely to be challenged, which it appears you believe to be, as you are asking for an experienced editor and/or administrator. I hope that answers your question about why people seem to think this is a request for an immediate close, and why some (well, me at least) are recommending we wait. Isabelle🔔19:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Guy's request for an experienced, uninvolved editor (preferably an admin due to the Arbcom/policy linkages) to close the RfC. Sooner, later, whenever. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*(Non-administrator comment) Too early. The last two votes (mine included) were made today, and there is a notable absence of editors with fresh eyes on this. It should probably be extended into other RfC category pools to get more editors with no prior history with the topic. And the unwieldy discussion section should be collapsed so it's more clear where to comment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FormalDude implemented a non-admin closure of a discussion which was not formally opened, which was still on-going, and which was only two days old. Their rationale is a complete misreading of WP:MUG and they have shut down all objections to their closure, insisting we take it elsewhere, hence this. Le Marteau (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm going to revert the close by FormalDude, and give him a warning. Way too many things wrong with it. For starters, in an informal discussion, if someone closes a discussion and there is an outcry from the general editor pool, you reopen it. The discussion was only two days old. Next, FormalDude started hatting discussions, seemingly to push away those that disagreed with him. Next, FormalDude reverted someone who had removed the close [13], which was done in a rude fashion. Plus the closing itself was just a giant super-vote. FormalDude, this was a textbook case of doing everything in the worst possible way imaginable. Trying to close it? Ok, fine, but do a proper job of it (ie: no supervote), and NEVER revert a reopening. Hell, I'm an admin and I wouldn't do that. I would take it to the boards for review. Same for hatting the discussion over the close. It just looks like you playing god and dictating it will be closed, dictating it shall not be discussed. Maybe you shouldn't be closing discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake for reverting and hatting. Although that hatting was done because Le Marteau was no longer criticizing the closure and was instead just making personal attacks against me.
If you want to categorize my justified questioning of your competence as an editor, as a "personal attack" that's fine. I'd do it again. Le Marteau (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, in between questioning your competence and behavior, I ABSOLUTELY was continuing to criticize the closure, when I pointed out your complete misreading of WP:MUGSHOT. Le Marteau (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes these discussion get people to searching for replacements, and sometimes find them. Sometimes they need time to hammer out policy considerations. Sometimes it just take a little time for a consensus to form, maybe to not include or bother at all. This is why you let them play out. Your close The mugshot cannot be included without a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the relevancy of the image to the specific incident, per WP:MUGSHOT. This discussion cannot override Wikipedia policy by claiming the onus is on removal when in fact the exact opposite is true. No prejeduce against starting a new thread, if it provides a RS for the mugshot., you are making determinations that you don't get to do in a close. On the contrary, your close was "I don't want you discussing this". It's very presumptuous. By you deciding ahead of time that WP:MUG didn't allow inclusion, and instead of commenting, you close the discussion, that is a TEXTBOOK example of a supervote. You are trying to lay down the law, when you have zero authority to do so, then revert to maintain "order". Dennis Brown - 2¢15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean it was. As an admin, my role in this isn't to get involved with the merits of the discussion, only with procedure and behavior, which was a problem. Never assume. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what help it is to not get involved in the merits of the discussion during a closure review. Anyone has the authority to make sure Wikipedia policy is being followed. By avoiding that question, you're making it seem like the only issue here is optics. ––FormalDudetalk16:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he's getting at is that no one person is imbued with the power to shut down a discussion on Wikipedia based on their personal interpretation of WP:PAG, which is what it looks like you did. Others clearly disagree with the closure, and your interpretation of it as a clear "never going to happen" scenario. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty commonplace for editors to shut down misguided discussions that are not following WP:PAG. The only ones who disagreed with the closure were the ones that were misinterpreting WP:PAG. I'm asking for clarification on whether it was or was not a "never going to happen" scenario, or at least a misguided discussion that could have been closed for being misguided per WP:Closing_discussions#cite_note-1. ––FormalDudetalk17:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my reading of Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited. is that [14][15][16][17] and likely hundreds more RS have linked the photograph to the specific incident that the subject was found guilty of. It doesn't seem like WP:MUG would apply, so I guess it's not a "never going to happen" scenario, as multiple good faith editors disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read my closure, a new thread providing RS was precisely what I called for. So it sounds like you're agreeing with me that that was the only way it was going to happen. ––FormalDudetalk17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could have replied in the existing thread "any use of the mugshot in the article will need high quality RS linking the mugshot to the crime." That's even easier than closing the discussion. I imagine there wasn't much talk about which RS they'd use because there are literally tens of thousands of them to choose from, and if the picture would be included or not was the real sticking point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't your place to decide, nor edit war over. Even admin rarely just shut down a discussion, and when we do, we often find ourselves here, explaining why. You simply do not have the authority you think you do. The fact that you don't understand this makes we want to ask the community for a topic ban against you closing discussions. Your lack of insight is disturbing. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised Dennis Brown would suggest a topic ban for a closure that they're not even willing to weigh in on the merits of.
I do understand that I should not have restored my closure, and I won't make that mistake again in the future. I also understand the explanation as to why it didn't need to be shut down, even if it was a discussion that didn't follow PAG. With that said, I support the decision to overturn. Sorry for any disruption. ––FormalDudetalk17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: As admin, I came in to restore the discussion only. They do not need, nor want, my opinion on the merits in an aborted discussion. My opinion is not worth any more than anyone else's in regard to the merits, so had I an opinion, I still wouldn't burden them with it. They are smart, they will figure it out. Part of doing administrative tasks is knowing when to STFU and not give unsolicited opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that would've needed intervention is edit warring to include a [non-free] mugshot in the article without positive consensus to do so. Discussion of the mugshot didn't need to be shut down, however well intentioned. Whether we call the closure a "supervote" or "closing according to the strength of arguments rather than headcount" (the distinction between them typically comes down to how the closing statement is worded and how many uninvolved people agree/disagree afterwards) doesn't matter as much IMO because it didn't need closing. If there's a dispute over the interpretation of WP:MUGSHOT, perhaps open a thread on that page. The file's been deleted, so perhaps this can wind down. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of comments during an RfC
NorthBySouthBaranof removed my comments at an RfC at Talk:Jussie Smollett here[18] and here[19]. He claims responses to comments in an RfC is not the appropriate venue because it' not supposed to be a discussion. I've dealt with RfC's before and I've always seen responses to peoples !votes; I've responded to people !votes before and people have respond to mine. I always believed RfC's were just discussions that are supposed to garner a bit more look from the community; there not special beyond that. Removing constructive comments is not ok and counters the consensus making process. His remedy is to have a subsection for discussion, but I don't see this as beneficial as the normal response method, and is only more confusing for editors. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did originally remove them, see the diffs above. You are now trying to lessen the impact by relocating them. My comments were brainstorms or general ideas about the RfC, which generally is what the "discussion" sections in an RfC are fore, my comments were direct responses to comments by another editor. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You expressed your comment and opinion with your !vote; why do you think you're entitled to demand separate explanations from each and every single !voter whose opinion differs from yours? Separating opinions and discussion is far cleaner, less repetitive, and easier to comprehend. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to one comment, that's it. I wouldn't say it's easier to comprehend because it's hard to see in the discussion section what the editors are responding too. Whether or not it looks "cleaner" or prettier is not a concern I have. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a reason for the comment to have been removed or moved. Looking at WP:RSN, it's clear that replies in the survey are standard practice. Not wanting it to be standard practice is not a reason to refactor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As ScottishFinnishRadish has said, it's common practice to have threaded discussions in the survey section of an RfC. Although this might make it harder to see the !votes, it's done in almost every RfC where points are countered or corrected by participants. If Iamreallygoodatcheckers clearly stated they did not want their comments moved, you should've have done so. As an aside, when you do move comments, you should try to make it clear to whom they were originally directed. (edit)I don't think this should've been brought to AN, though, as there appears to be no urgency here, just a small mistake. Isabelle🔔00:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This gatekeeping, pointed out in this section and the one directly above, is ridiculous. There is nothing inappropriate about any of the discussion that is ongoing, which is indeed a robust collaboration that will undoubtedly improve the article. I’m sorry that Smollett staged an absurd hate crime hoax, but it’s Wikipedia’s role to document it correctly. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too secret for Wikipedia. Shhhhh! Ignore external hyperlink to the named person's news site, too. Xe didn't post it on a noticeboard to make it public. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Militant Left is a Trotskyist political party active in Australia. After a split, in 2019, in the Committee for a Workers' International (1974), the group was founded by former members of the Socialist Party who wished to affiliate to the 'refounded' Committee for a Workers' International (2019). Initially known as Socialist Party Australia CWI, it renamed itself Militant Left Australia in 2021.
I'm not sure what type of request this is, but without further explanation I'm not sure it's relevant for this noticeboard. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're a representative of the organisation and you don't wish the article to exist -- is this correct? — Czello15:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CWI has existed for a long time, 1964. It has had, and still has sections in many countries. There have been splits, as there have been, and will continue to be in all political parties. In Australia the CWI section has only recently been re-established. When we are, with the CWI, in agreement with the name, of course we want it to be accessible to all. Please excuse me for not understanding some of the conventions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1080:1C9D:3165:F841:4C3F:D935 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration motion regarding Geschichte
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The "Geschichte" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.[note 1]
If Geschichte (talk·contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.
If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.
If you have questions about an administrative action you are expected to make some attempt to discuss it with the administrator before bringing it for review here. Changing from a 7 day block to a 12.5 day block seems at best to be a completely pointless suggestion and certainly not worth an AN thread. Block durations are set based on the length of time needed to prevent continuing disruption, there isn't an "X hours of block per edit" type formula. Since these seem to be mobile edits it's probable that the person the block is targeted at will have a new IP in a matter of hours anyway. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting very old edits
User:Encyclopedist & User talk:Encyclopedist both have been sysop-protected for 12 years now. This protection came after another unrelated editor removed the sockpuppetry notice from the user page & redirected it to their own user page & talk page. Some administrator should revert the pages back to the revision when it was not a redirect, and that sock notices were still present. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs)15:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect looks to be correct. If you look at the block log of Ulises Heureaux, you'll see he was blocked for sockpuppetry, and then unblocked as they had been given a second chance under a new name. The second account hasn't editted since 2010, and this all appears pointless. LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is a standard way of linking two accounts belonging to one user. And yes, this is a pointless request after all this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon unblock I will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before: Working RSN, providing translations from other Wikis, and working biology articles such as Hadesarchea, though my activities have shifted more toward Hylidae. I have a list of articles from other Wikipedias that I plan to translate. I've spent the past years at the Simple English Wikipedia with only positive incident. I've been awarded several barnstars and participated in many editing events. I was given patroller rights there long ago. All is going well. I've started many articles there, including Alberto Santos Dumont, Green-eyed tree frog and Trolley problem. I was on the team for two Good Articles: simple:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and simple:Sento and helped a little on simple:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I helped organize Simple's branch of two edit-a-thons.
I recently witnessed a block experience on another website, and it gave me insight into how my posts must look to other people. The disciplinary system is more complicated than it looks on the surface, and that's not the worst thing in the world.
I accept that it is the admins' job to interpret policy. I asked ArbCom about their decision to block me in 2018 as I was appealing a lesser sanction, and they answered me. I consider it asked and answered. I plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction to be qualitatively different from my last, as stipulated, and to continue to obey said topic ban until it is lifted. As I have always sought to do, I will work completely within Wikipedia's posted rules. If there is anything else that the adminship wants me to do or not do, they need only post on my talk page with my instructions.
I have never attempted block evasion in my life on this or any website.
Two parties at the thread have asked for a timeline of events and more information. I put this together today:
In assembling this timeline, I realized I'd actually forgotten a lot of this. I don't think this timeline has everything but it does have most of the major parts.
To address Ivanvector's point about Wikinews, the answer is no, the situations are not related. What happened on Wikinews during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was that I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill." This statement was deemed to violate WN:NEVERASSUME.
If you want to read just one link that shows the core of my case, I recommend this ArbCom appeal from 2018: [20]
What I did wrong and kept doing wrong was grossly misunderstand Wikipedia's system for handling blocks and other sanctions. I thought that appealing a block meant providing an elaborate, detailed, multi-part proposal for solving underlying problems ("I'm ready to be part of the solution!") with tons of links and diffs explaining why the original sanctions were wrong, and that is absolutely not how the Wikipedia system works. In fact, by trying to do things that way, I was driving people nuts! As one user put it, I was writing a "call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's [not] necessary." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline
In early 2016, I fell under a topic ban for part of the Manual of Style. I don't know how to give more detail on that without saying anything that could be interpreted as relitigating it. Do I agree with the topic ban? No. Have I always done my best to obey it anyway? Yes. The site can't function otherwise.
After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. I'd actually planned to make monthly reports to him about what I was doing elsewhere on Wikipedia, as if he were my parole officer because that's what I thought was going on. At my formal appeal of said topic ban, I thought the right thing to do was to provide evidence that the original accusations were wrong. Again, that's not how we do things here.
Another complaint: [22] I don't really remember what this was about and I'd rather not reread it.
Another complaint by RGloucester. I remember this one. Someone invited me to a discussion involving my banned topic and I said what amounted to "I can't go because I'm under a topic ban," but I did also include a link that the admins said was a violation: [23] Like I said earlier, if the admins say it counts as a topic ban violation, then I have to treat them like a referee in a sports match. If I remember correctly, the part of my post that they considered a violation was visible for forty seconds before I reverted it myself, without being asked, before this complaint was filed.
Now the AE block... [24] I thought that WP:BANEX meant I was allowed to talk to the enforcing admin about these things, but the admins and ArbCom have decided it does not mean that.
Since it was an AE block, I appealed at ArbCom once in late 2016 [25] and again in 2018. But AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year. In my case it was a little longer, but I appealed again in I want to say 2017 through the normal unblock system.
I then spent the next six months working RSN and generally contributing to parts of Wikipedia that I hadn't been to before, staying fully away from the Manual of Style. I remember that time passing without incident.
I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised.
I appealed that block to ArbCom, and the appeal was declined.
ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [27]
It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Community input
Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community. Operator873 connect18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock – Regrettably, this unblock request shows the same lack of acknowledgement of the reasons for the initial block that has been displayed in previous unblock requests, and is laden with the same quasi-legalistic arguments about the procedure by which the block was enacted. Any unblock request must acknowledge the original reasons why Darkfrog24 was blocked, and show at least a modicum of contrition. Anything else is opening up the encyclopaedia to the same sort of incessant disruption that Darkfrog24 wrought upon the encyclopaedia years ago. RGloucester — ☎18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - struck, see below.[reply]
Just looking over the standard offer, I see a requirement to avoid the initial behavior that led to the block as the only stipulation regarding past issues. I feel Darkfrog24 addressed this in their request. Additionally, I'll further point out that the stand offer specifically mentions "Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are." Not only has Darkfrog24 distinguished themselves on other projects, they have specifically expressed the willingness to move forward productively on this project. I think this is an excellent opportunity to AGF and allow a chance to reintegrate. Operator873 connect19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place, Darkfrog's case is anything but 'standard'. We're well past that point. We've had eight years of appeals, all of them tone deaf wastes of the community's time. While I agree, no one should be forced to grovel and beg for forgiveness, nor is that what I'm asking for here, this unblock request itself is an example of the 'initial behaviour that led to the block'. I do not believe that Darkfrog understands what Darkfrog did that lead to the block, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that they will actually abide their topic ban and avoid such behaviour in future. For Darkfrog to be 'productive', they will need to express a clear understanding of the topic ban that was issued, and why it was issued, without asking for endless clarifications. RGloucester — ☎19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support their work on Simple does the thing that we literally always ask for: demonstrate the ability to work collegially and without disruption on another project, and assuming that CU corroborates that claim, I think it's an easy decision to unblock per ROPE. I note, in passing, that neither WP:SO, WP:BLOCKING nor WP:UNBLOCK demand any kind of grovelling "contrition", and I do not think it is necessary to make people crawl to see that they know where they went wrong. I also think that it ill-behoves those that supposedly non-partisanly move an editors unblock request here then begin WP:BLUDGEONing the same discussion. What gives? SN5412919:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit rude, don't you think? I have Darkfrog's talk page watched because of our previous interactions, and noticed no one had copied the request to AN as was requested. BLUDGEONing? Sometimes, I wonder about Wikipedia. One comment, a bludgeon. In any case, I will withdraw, if not for yours or Darkfrog's sake, for my own.RGloucester — ☎20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we want thoughtful participation from more people than just those who have had past dealings with them, there needs to be some background here. As someone unfamiliar, I have no idea what topic DF is even topic banned from, no idea what led to their topic ban, no idea what they did in violation of the topic ban to earn a block, and no idea why multiple previous unban requests have been rejected. There is no way to find all this without some detective work. Is the theory that every single person who comments here is supposed to spend an hour and do this research for themselves? Since @Darkfrog24: is the one requesting an unblock, here is the minimum I'd like to see from them:
Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to the topic ban
Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to their multiple blocks
Links to the previous unblock requests.
If someone besides DF wants to compile this instead, OK I guess. But until then, this is an insufficient unblock request, and I conditionally oppose it until it is fleshed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't expect a forced apology for past wrongs but I do expect that those past wrongs are at least acknowledged in an unblock request. I'm not familiar with this user, but from what I can gather from links in their extensive block log, they were topic-banned from a particular subset of the manual of style, I cannot discern for what reason, and some time later were indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access revoked (as well as UTRS eventually revoked) because they just would not stop wikilawyering and attempting to relitigate the topic ban. The fact that they were also indefinitely blocked on WikiNews for the same type of behaviour (allegedly also over that project's style guides), and the fact they've explicitly stated their intent to relitigate the same sanction again in their unblock request, does not sit right with me. I both commend and applaud your contributions to simplewiki, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the 2016 Arbitration motion: "She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." I interpreted Darkfrog's comment about appealing lesser sanctions to be in line with previous advice, aka to work on editing constructively in other areas prior to trying to immediately re-enter the sanctioned areas that caused issues last time, and to abide by those sanctions so long as they are in place. And yep, I've had a hard time trying to sift through all of the archives, it's a rather annoyingly complicated set of discussions. Regardless, Darkfrog is certainly capable of contributing constructively to community projects, and I don't see how this block is preventing disruption by continuing. Vermont (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then, as Darkfrog has not done so, tell us what the [expletive deleted] ban or block (it is unknown whether it was one or both, as the title of this section refers to unblocking but subsequent comments talk about a topic ban) was for and link to the relevant discussions. How can anyone independent come to an opinion without this information? And having to spend time digging around for that information will inevitably end up biasing people against her. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough information has been provided for anyone to have an opinion. User:Darkfrog24, you are the one asking to be unblocked, so you need to tell us (with links) why you were blocked. You can't expect others to do any detective work to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock. Those demanding some sort of act of contrition are on thin ice for actual policy. All that matters is that henceforth Darkfrog24 promises to be a positive contributor, and has the work at other projects to show that they are capable of it. DF's work at Simple is absolutely all the evidence needed. (Those asking about a timeline of events can see the one DF24 placed on their talk page, being that that is the only place they can currently post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. The failure to provide links to the discussions that led to the imposition of the sanctions and the previous discussions that declined to remove the sanctions is a very bad indicator, and to me, shows disrespect to editors trying to evaluate this unblock request without wasting editors time in conducting detective work. This editor has had many years to study and learn what is required to formulate and submit a successful unblock request. I looked at a unblock request from 2019 that is linked in this user's block log, and noticed that I had opposed the unblock based on comments from TonyBallioni which I agreed with at this time and still agree with today. Then, I checked out a block related conversation from 2016 which included comments from Drmies that gave me great pause. That was eight years ago. Some may argue that this was all quite a few years ago, but that argument is only legitimate if we have solid evidence that this editor has abandoned that disruptive point of view. I see no such evidence. The editor's supporters point to their good work at Simple English Wikipedia and I suppose that is a point in their favor. With no disrespect to thar project, I consider it to be relatively minor in comparison to this project, and I am sure that pageviews will back up my claim. So, perhaps this editor's best niche is as a contributor to that project, where they can make positive contributions to that offshoot project, but are unable to disrupt the flagship project of the Wikipedia movement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Operator873, thank you for providing a link to where this blocked editor says After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. That amounts to additional evidence that this block remains necessary. What we need to see for an unblock is evidence that this editor has completely and definitively abandoned this type of disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think DF is specifically saying they see this was a mistake and a part of the problem. Hence, they do not intend to repeat it in the future and, at the minimum, are requesting WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap. Operator873 connect03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, that's them describing their past misconceptions from almost three years ago. See the last sentence of what you quoted. Vermont (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't care about apologies or statements demonstrating understanding; I don't pretend I can judge a stranger's mindset based on written correspondence. What I care about isn't what's in their head or heart but their actions, specifically whether they can contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting others. I believe they can after skimming their Simple Wiki contribs [29] and talk page (2021 is a year of what appear like productive collegial conversations), and their Wikinews contribs since being unblocked there in December [30]. Maybe I missed some recent red flags but absent evidence of recent problems, if they can edit without problems at Simple for the last couple years and Wikinews for the last couple months, they should be fine here. And if not, they'll get blocked again. Levivich03:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally rather oppose due to extensive off-wiki experience with the user that led to me leaving #wikipedia-en back in 2019 when this user was allowed to "help" others with their policy questions there during their block. I believe they have always had the genuine intent of helping, but reading their name here again brings back bad memories. They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It pains me to see someone say any reason made them walk away from Wikipedia. Indeed, that is, perhaps, the worse outcome of any conflict on Wikipedia. However, with respect to you and not intending to offend, but... isn't They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. the precise embodiment of assuming bad faith? I understand some folks expended a lot of energy in 2019 regarding DF and the incident they were involved in. However, in 2022, I hope those same people can see the amount of energy DF has put into re-earning enough trust to be given a chance. Operator873 connect23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the IRC channel, not the English Wikipedia itself. I assume good faith, but it was clearly combined with incompetence back in 2019, which may have changed. Assuming that this might not have changed is not an assumption of bad faith, it's just pessimism. That should be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also noticed that and had a similar concern. Though, it looks like that should hopefully no longer be applicable with the unban discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair statement and I think I understand what you mean. While I can't speak for Vermont, I can say my reason for being here supporting her is that I am witness to her improvement and will put my name on this statement: I know the troubles are in the past and she's ready to move forward. Operator873 connect23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support based on the responses and timeline. I do think the user understands why they were blocked by ArbCom on their last topic ban appeal, and acknowledges that rationale such that those particular issues won't recur. From the appeals of the block, it seems we as a community have pulled a "gotcha!" each time they appeal: if they acknowledge the topic ban we say "they're relitigating!" and decline; if they don't mention the topic ban we say "they don't acknowledge the ban!" and still decline. Well we can't have it both ways. They're a user whose past productivity on this wiki has been noted and who has remained active on sister projects throughout their block here, which is what WP:SO asks for. They're here committing to respect the topic ban even though they disagree with it, which is how topic bans work. They should be given the opportunity to comply.
Regarding the topic ban, which is not being appealed here; Darkfrog24: in each of your requests where you've noted the topic ban, you've made a point of also noting that you disagree with it. You need to refocus; saying you don't agree with the ban kills your appeal before you even get started. Successful topic ban appeals start with the sanctioned user acknowledging that their own disruptive behaviour led to the sanction, and that the sanction was necessary to stop their disruption; that's how you convince the community you won't just do the same thing again. It seems you've appealed many times already on the basis of the propriety of the ban, and each time those reviewing agreed that it was appropriate and necessary. You will not successfully appeal until you also acknowledge that it was necessary. Nobody here has any moral authority to demand contrition or apologies, and that's not how any of this works, but a successful appeal does sound something like "yes I did these things and I was sanctioned because I would not stop." Best of luck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unblock I recognize DF's name, but I don't know that we have had any substantive interaction; still, for me, this seems an easy support. They are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and should be given the chance to do so. I also don't mind a stance of "I believe this decision is wrong, but I am willing to abide by it" (but note I am not an administrator). I would however, urge DF to be less litigious in general--I think the original block was appropriate. That said, all the best, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised"--that led me to two comments by Thryduulf, this and this, and those comments are still valid. I also agree with comments by Cullen328. I'll add that the way this request is going, starting of vague and partly in denial and then moving into minutiae is exactly how earlier conversations/appeals went, and it's exasperating. On the other hand, Levivich makes a valid point and who knows, it's been a while. Putting all that together with my own memories (which bring back a sense of failure and frustration on my own part), I find it impossible to choose one option over the other, and will wait and see what the community says. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of this until seeing Drmies' ping above. I still have strong memories of just how exasperated I was by Darkfrog24 (which is significant given that it was years ago), such that I don't wish to spend any time evaluating this request so I will not bold any opinions. However I will encourage not unblocking without a short leash such that, should they return to their previous behaviour or anything else disruptive that a block can be swiftly reimposed without wasting yet more of the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just felt I should briefly chime in again to explain my thinking--which is mostly about the nature of DF's transgressions. They were, as far as I can tell and somewhat recall about being an administrative time sink and aggravation. I don't mean to make light of that as an issue; as I said above, the block was deserved. But it strikes me that if anything like that were to reoccur, it would be instantly obvious by its very nature. I think we all agree DF could be a worthwhile contributor, they just need to make sure their behavior doesn't make them a net negative. I believe they should have that chance, though, as ever, my information is only partial and I fully appreciate how others (especially admins!) could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I said I would not comment further, and I wish that I could do so, but it seems there is a real problem in terms of institutional memory here. Perhaps too much time has passed, as some others have said. I take Ivanvector's point that, in order for the topic ban to be acknowledged, it needs to be discussed. However, one must take care to note the specific way in which it is being discussed. Please see this comment that Darkfrog has added. I would like editors here to draw their attention to one particular remark, specifically the following sentence: In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. This may seem to benign to anyone here who is not familiar with the dispute, but I can assure you that it is not. The initial topic ban was issued precisely because Darkfrog continued to advocate for a position that quotation style is an ENGVAR issue. Contrary to community consensus, and a pile of reliable sources that were brought up each time it was discussed, Darkfrog would argue that there are 'American' and 'British' quotation styles, and that Wikipedia needed to acknowledge this fact.
Because this argument was repeatedly rejected at the main MoS page, Darkfrog moved the dispute to a few subpages, one of which was subsequently deleted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support, and one which was userfied User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register (please note the creator's comment at the top of the page). Darkfrog's reference to the 'Manual of Style Register' is in fact not benign at all. This page, previously at the title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, was used by Darkfrog as a PoV fork of the MoS, despite the fact that it had no community consensus behind it. Darkfrog used the page to compile random stuff that Darkfrog deemed useful ammunition in disputes, and its previous shortcut of MOS:REGISTER gave it an air of legitimacy. Please note very carefully that Darkfrog linked directly to a section of this page that Darkfrog had compiled for this purpose, without providing any of the background information about the page, and with continued reference to it as if it had the authority of an actual MoS page. This is the exact sort of behaviour that led to the original topic ban, and is proof that Darkfrog has not 'dropped the stick' as people are wont to say here. The advocacy campaign, and the attempts to legitimise Darkfrog's position, continue...in this situation, how can an unblock be justified? This really will be my last comment, and I do apologise if my participation here is deemed a nuisance...but it seems like I am one of the few people that actually remember what happened here. RGloucester — ☎15:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My view on this as I said above is that Darkfrog is not appealing their topic ban which covers all of these past disputes, they're stating that they intend to respect it. Even though they explicitly disagree with it I see no reason not to believe that they're capable of abiding by it. It seems to me that has always been the case, with the exception of their nagging of a relevant administrator (which they now acknowledge was both "testing the edges" and harassment) and their crossing the line in an AC appeal. I think they also understand that if this request is successful and they then violate the topic ban again, the resulting block will be quite permanent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if, as Thryduulf says, Darkfrog is truly given a 'short leash', and Darkfrog truly intends to abide the restriction, then I suppose I can withdraw my opposition to an unblock. In order for such a 'short leash' to be enforced, however, it is important for administrators to familiarise themselves with the specific nature of the behaviour that led to the block. I will strike my oppose. RGloucester — ☎15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very dubious about unblocking this editor. The response to my simple request to show why they were blocked/banned was not to provide a few links with a brief factual account but to give a rant about how hard done by they were, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that led to the block in the first place. If the editor is to be unblocked then I hope that those who want this are willing to take responsibility should anything untoward happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: Apologies, but I was hoping you could clarify your message. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you're saying DF has gone on a rant but, they're blocked. They literally can't participate here and have only provided a brief synopsis on their talkpage with links to the requested information others have asked for. I'm just confused about you talking about their behavior where DF can't actually participate? Operator873 connect23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And I copy/pasted that edit here. But, I think it's a bit of a reach to call that a rant. DF was specifically asked for all of that information. She provided as requested. Operator873 connect23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a rant. There's loads of self-justifying commentary there rather than just a statement of the facts that she was specifically asked for. That's exactly what she was blocked for. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is very clear sysop misconduct + one-way IBANs are a problem; unlike anything here. I was not familiar with the Arb matters at the time, but it does not appear to be necessary as of right now. Darkfrog24 can use common sense; even in times when many editor editors do not, and I hope to see good contributions from Darkfrog24 in the future, and improve the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment on administrator activity levels
Please see the following RfC, suggesting that we increase the minimum activity requirements for administrators to an average of 20 edits per year, over a 5 year period.
Sometimes once is enough, depending on the type of vandalism they do. If someone spouts some nazi or racist crap in an article on their first edit...boom. indef blocked by me. Sometimes it is a sock but we don't want to give them credit. Boom, indef. Or as Ponyo showed, sometimes there is stuff you don't see, either deleted contribs, revdel, oversight or filter triggering. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Wikimedian in residence at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and I ran into the problem that my work laptop's IP has been blocked from editing due to the use of the work VPN system. I've been able to continue editing from another laptop but I would like to request the unblock of my IP range. The smaller reason is that I could use my work laptop. But I realised that this will probably affect all the people at NIHR who will be attending editing trainings as they use the same VPN system as I did. I don't know too much about IPs and VPNs so I'm also asking your opinion on how to solve the situation so people at the NIHR could edit Wikipedia.
The IP address or range that has been blocked: 157.167.64.0/20
I've granted IPBE, starting at one year, so you can continue using your work laptop. At this time I don't see anyone else attempting to use this particular part of the network, but if you do encounter anyone seeing this block then feel free to let me know. If I can put it another way, you are probably just seeing a small part of the wider network. As for the network itself, Forcepoint, I'll leave that open for comments from the blocking admin, ST47, and others. It strikes me as very similar to a ZScaler situation. -- zzuuzz(talk)10:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I'll ask others to try editing, we'll see if they have the same problem.
I'm not sure you can copyright a list of facts, but this is a little more, in that they made the decision to rank them. Still, once they have done this, it is just a list of facts, not prose. No expert here, but I can't help but think the list is ok. What is copyrighted is the prose and format they presented the list in. We have a lot of these articles, like where Barron's magazine might list the 10 most successful companies, etc. and we reprint the list, sourcing it back to them. A good example is List of most valuable brands. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector and Dennis Brown: The relevant help page here is Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Something like a list of companies by value is not copyrightable as it contains nothing except simple facts sorted into ascending order, whereas something like a list of the "greatest artists of all time" would be protected by copyright since its production involved a significant amount of creative expression, it being based entirely off the opinions of the author. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
user on Ku Klux Klan attempting to push his POV onto the article
i recently was checking on the article Ku Klux Klan and i saw that someone had put a bunch of stuff about the Ku Klux Klan being "pro-gun control", "progressive", "leftist", etc on the article, i have reverted most of the additions, especially the unsourced ones, its a clear attempt of the famous "what i don't like is literally KKK/Hitler/nazis", attempting to, as always, call the KKK democrats, leftists and progressivists, when its said, with sources, on the page itself, that the KKK is a socially conservative, anti progressivist group, about the leftist thing and "first KKK is not far right and progressives supported it", its clear that it was, and that these so called progressives and leftists were not leftists or progressivists at all, as, why would a progressive support a conservative organization, in addition, just supporting the new deal doesn't instantly make you a progressive, as the democrats at the time weren't really progressive.
anyways, i think that we should, in fact, protect the article with a higher protection, to prevent things like that from occurring, as vandalism was also recently reported in the page, thanks in advance. EpicWikiLad (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Reason has something of a dog in this fight. To call the 20's klan "progressive" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me as we use the term today. My favorite (popular) history of this era is "Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan" by Nancy MacLean (forgive my dated tastes as I am old). While we can take the Reason article into account, I think we should be looking to more authoritative sources. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the insinuation of EpicWikiLadhere that the KKK opposed labor unions is another point I will provide a refutation to. This source explains that the the Klan favored labor unions and violently resisted strikes in the 1920s when certain unions were exclusive to benefiting the white Protestant working-class. — trn(debate me)•(my accomplishments)23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is referring to the Bull Moose Party sense and era of "Progressivism". Using that as a rationale for cramming a no-context, no-nuance reference to Progressivism in the United States into the infobox, with no supporting material in the article, looks like an ill-judged addition at best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it appears you did not sufficiently write it. (Which given the nature of that writing, overall no bad thing.) I think the "at best" assumption of any good faith here is sailing rather fast. That you made other poor-quality "hahaha leftist KKK gotcha" edits at the same time to the rest of the text, while failing to stand up that one, is entirely besides the point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Klan most certainly took some left-wing positions, namely gun control (First Klan) and compulsory public education (Second Klan). The attributed label of "right-wing" to describe them relies on vague, often fallacious presumptions. Books such as "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics" by Rory McVeigh outright admit that they arbitrarily assign a vague definition to "right-wing" order to deem the Klan as allegedly such. — trn(debate me)•(my accomplishments)01:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aware to the point of finding it "boring" that they've been warned "a zillion times", indeed. If they're not reading these notices before blanking them on their talk page, they certainly should be... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TRN's Reason article looks sufficiently detailed to suggest this content should probably be in the article. It might help if the article were structured around these different phases of the KKK, even in the introduction. That said, why is there no talk page discussion regarding these edits? The most recent, non vandalism edit, was 4 March. I would suggest finding additional sources (certainly the Reason article provides some). The Reason article looks like a good source but, unless we have additional sources, it would have to be treated as a single source and thus have very limited weight. Get the sources, propose changes on the talk page. Springee (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TRN is doing the standard 21st-century reactionary thing, of conflating the late 19th-early 20th century progressive movement and the Democrats of that era, with the 21st-century Democrats and the contemporary use of the term "progressive" to describe views actually closer to the 1920s Socialist Party of America than anybody else of that era. The goal, as MrOllie points out, seems to be "guilt by association" as practiced by D'Souza and others who call liberals fascists, antifascists fascists, BLM activists racists, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the irony of someone hurling "guilt by association" charges toward me to insinuate I merely follow in the footsteps of D'Souza... I do not wholeheartedly subscribe to the argumentative points of D'Souza, which I view as frequently naive. And please clarify what you mean by "antifascists." Is the reference towards Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation? And do the mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020 not merely serve the causes of white supremacists in decimating the livelihoods of ethnic minority residents in those areas? — trn(debate me)•(my accomplishments)00:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation AND mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020? Yup, somebody's been chugging the alt-right fantasy Koolaid, all right. (And I live in the inner city of a major American city, TRN.) --Orange Mike | Talk01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now purportedly "alt-right" in spite of my consistent edits which demonstrate an effort to point out and expose bigotry that numerous articles whitewash via omission? And I purportedly chug the Kool-Aid? The English language lacks enough words for me to sufficiently deem this laughably ridiculous slander. — trn(debate me)•(my accomplishments)01:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Total random nerd, let me put this in plain Texas talk: I read through your edits earlier, some were a little problematic, but much of it was interesting and I can see where there is merit to including it. The problem is the sources need a little work, and the other problem is you. You come in with a sledgehammer in hand, breaking shit, so it's no wonder some people are going to get upset. What you are talking about is pretty radical change to the page. I'm not an expert, but some of it seems worthwhile and would get consensus. But you have already added it, it was reverted. Via our gold standard for editing disputes, WP:BRD, now is the time you stop editing and use the talk page to discuss your changes, calmly and politely show your sources, and try to garner support over time. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but if you keep editing this boldly, you're going to have a bad day. TheBanner points to where you are edit warring. If you do THAT again, you're going to have a bad day. I don't want to block you, but I can justify it easily if you don't pull back a little and use the talk page. If you do that, then all is well. Just be patient, this stuff takes time. People in general abhor change so trying wowing them them charm instead of beating them with your opinion. Serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I do want to block them, and have done, for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the 1-revert restriction at Margaret Sanger. As The Banner points out, TRN has ignored a warning about it (with a yawn, so I guess they have become pretty blasé about warnings that have never before been followed up with a sanction). Also, the 1RR restriction is shown in a great big in-your-face template that comes up when you attempt to edit the article. 24 hours is a short block; I'm not sure some of the stuff above doesn't merit more; but this is what I'll personally do at this time. No prejudice to further sanctions. Bishonen | tålk09:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
theres a ip that has made a ton of sockpuppets and he is constantly vandalizing the article, i ask for someone to make a sockpuppet investigations page or something and block the involved ips and accounts from editing, in addition, protect the page to prevent more vandalism. EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI might not be a bad idea. Hopefully the SP will cut down the disruption. I should imagine there's some nationalistic propaganda going on, but I wouldn't want to try to sort it. I just WP:AGF hope for the best. --Deepfriedokra(talk)00:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2FA is not magic pixie dust. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
El_C 15:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Done Muboshgu has protected the page for another 2 weeks: Special:Diff/1077172755. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Declined - Although if the edit warring worsens, I will be happy to dish out blocks. It isn't kosher to rush and revert to your preferred version, then quickly come ask for protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.
That escalated quickly! Faster than Thunder, Special:Diff/1077505294 should already contain all information you needed including a link to the relevant policy and the filter log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
