Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	40	43
TfD	0	0	3	0	3
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	64	19	83
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8221 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Mostafa Makhlouf 2024-08-12 10:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Jordan Chiles 2024-08-12 02:34 2024-08-19 02:34 move Arbitration enforcement: Biographies of living persons. Requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1239661096#Jordan Chiles Red-tailed hawk Ana Bărbosu 2024-08-12 02:33 2024-08-19 02:33 move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1239661186#Ana Bărbosu Red-tailed hawk Draft:Umar jaum 2024-08-12 01:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato Jason Itzler 2024-08-12 01:43 2024-11-12 01:43 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi Michael Lisovetsky 2024-08-11 20:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Yaroslav Kysil 2024-08-11 20:51 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Mongol invasions of the Levant 2024-08-11 18:50 2025-02-11 18:50 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Infobox Pan American Games event 2024-08-11 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2844 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Shubham Rameshwar Kakde 2024-08-11 06:15 2025-08-11 06:15 create Repeatedly recreated Johnuniq Narayana Guru 2024-08-11 04:27 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq User talk:Yamla/talk/talk 2024-08-11 01:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem User talk:RickinBaltimore 2024-08-11 00:17 indefinite move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft talk:Farlight 84 2024-08-10 21:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Al-Tabin school attack 2024-08-10 13:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Wikipedia talk:…/talk 2024-08-09 23:34 indefinite create LTA target Ad Orientem Wikipedia talk:… 2024-08-09 23:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: LTA Ad Orientem 1999 East Timorese crisis 2024-08-09 23:18 2025-05-14 00:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Category link if exists 2024-08-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3481 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Taxila Business School 2024-08-09 17:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Draft:Sabit Yeasin 2024-08-09 16:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Hahaha 2024-08-09 16:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Israel Olympic football team 2024-08-09 15:16 2024-11-09 15:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli incursions in Tulkarm 2024-08-09 14:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato MrBeast 2024-08-09 14:01 2024-11-09 14:01 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:Battle of Height 383 2024-08-09 04:51 indefinite edit,move persistent readdition of page to categories no matter how many times it's removed on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds, by an editor who's already been told to stop it Bearcat Lipetsk air base 2024-08-09 04:35 2024-09-09 04:34 edit move protection was not needed here Red-tailed hawk Hawkesbury, Ontario 2024-08-09 00:37 2024-08-16 00:37 edit,move Persistent vandalism Anachronist Baalveer 2024-08-09 00:14 2024-11-09 00:14 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruption resumed as soon as the prior protection lifted. Anachronist Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark 2024-08-08 20:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Special military operation 2024-08-08 18:19 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Muboshgu Template:Election box gain with party link no swing 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Proper name 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Disestablishment category in country by decade/core 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2586 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics 2024-08-08 12:46 2024-09-08 12:46 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Kursk 2024-08-08 12:39 2025-02-08 12:39 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

Unclear delimiters of Philip Cross topic ban

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

---

I am using this forum instead of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because I am frankly uncertain whether or not Philip Cross has breached his indefinite topic ban from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Accordingly, I seek clarification from administrators.

On 10 February 2020, I inquired at his User Talk page as to his block status, noting that he has had 1½ years in which to appeal. I specifically directed his attention to minor edits that day, in which he merely italicized a couple of names, to the BLP of English journalist and writer James Bloodworth.

Two days later, Philip Cross replied, "There is negligible direct reference to post-1978 British politics in the article you cite."

In response, I listed the article's following references to post-1978 British politics.

• Bloodworth is a former member of Britain's Trotskyist group Alliance for Workers' Liberty, who edited the left-wing UK political news and comment site Left Foot Forward from 2013 until 2016.
• He blogged from 2013 to 2015 at The Spectator, which Wikipedia identifies as a UK political magazine.
• He is the author of The Myth of Meritocracy: Why Working-Class Kids Still Get Working-Class Jobs (2016), whose Amazon product description states: "Hitherto, Labour and Conservative politicians alike have sought to deal with the problem by promoting the idea of 'equality of opportunity'. In politics, social mobility is the only game in town, and old socialist arguments emphasising economic equality are about as fashionable today as mullets and shell suits."
• He is the author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain (2019), whose Amazon product description quotes Nick Timothy, former chief of staff to then UK prime minister Theresa May: "Whatever you think of the political assertions in this book—and I disagree with many of them—this is an important investigation into the reality of low-wage Britain. Whether you are on the Right, Left or Centre, anybody who believes in solidarity and social justice should read this book."
• He has praised Roger Scruton's Thinkers of the New Left (2015), a book that proved controversial (Wikipedia tells us) because of Scruton's attacks on the British Left.

In conclusion, I commented that for an article about a living British journalist that is still classified as a stub, this is an impressive amount of detail related to post-1978 British politics. Philip Cross rejected my argument.

If an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of work that bots would do if they could be taught how to identify the titles of creative works. Unless an editor's been disruptively making minor edits (e.g. stalking someone else) or is causing problems with minor edits (e.g. adding italics where they don't belong), there's no good reason to sanction someone for minor edits: the rule demonstrably would be preventing him from maintaining and improving Wikipedia, so it should be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend If I understand you, then, it's OK for someone to violate his indefinite ban from a topic, broadly construed, so long as he restricts himself to minor edits. That strikes me as a very strange policy. NedFausa (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to be very grateful for the uninvolved administrator, let me be firmer: this is an unambiguous improvement, and nothing matters more than improving the project, so stop tattling on him. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend I said I'd be very grateful if an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation. You have not done so. Having read the topic ban that ARBCOM carefully hashed out, I see no room for the exception you have carved out. NedFausa (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend, what's this unnecessary comment about being grateful for? You have clearly explained nothing to NedFausa.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator, I repeatedly helped him understand the situation by explaining that it would be harmful to the encyclopedia (WP:IAR) to sanction someone for doing minor, obvious fixes, and yet he rejected my input despite saying that he'd be grateful for exactly what I gave. Just demonstrating that this is not a good-faith request, but a "gotcha" attempt to get this person sanctioned for obvious improvements. It was tempting to take advantage of my status as an uninvolved administrator by blocking him for trying to game the system, but I figured that would produce more harm than benefit. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. Seems like broad should include even little things, but I also like the word tattling. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More work than I would want to put in, but you probably should have let them do a few more edits and see if you could catch them doing something major. Probably would have worked if you hadn't tipped them off. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher Tipping him off was my whole point in posting this first to his User Talk page. I sincerely don't want to take it to ARBCOM, where the topic ban originated. I just want Philip Cross to keep within his lane. NedFausa (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's something galling about an ostensibly new editor telling a 15-year veteran to keep within their lane. Please choose your words more carefully in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the whole issue with how you interpret "broadly construed" really means. Common sense (which stems from ignore all rules, or IAR) suggests that something as inconsequential as italicizing the newspaper shouldn't necessitate hauling an editor to Arbitration Enforcement. This example is a textbook case where IAR applies. I highly doubt a banned editor using sockpuppet accounts will get banned for something as trivial as this. This thread should just be closed as a time sink and nothing positive is going to come out of it. I agree with Nyttend. Spend the time on actually improving an article, don't spend the time on a dramaboard to discuss why someone should be reprimanded for improving. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I should have known. Thank you for finally helping to make sense of this. NedFausa (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the arbs who wrote the TBan remedy for Cross, the point of the TBan was to restrict Cross from being tempted to edit on politics topics (especially BLPs) where he was personally involved off-wiki with the subjects, because that had become problematic. I definitely would not consider minor markup edits to the article of a journalist, even if he does sometimes write about politics, to be a violation of the spirit of the restriction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

PMC: thank you for explaining. I was misled by the "broadly construed" nomenclature included in your topic ban of Philip Cross, and by the policy statement that dictates what a topic ban covers—unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise—while establishing no exception for minor edits (markup or otherwise). To avoid future misunderstandings, I encourage you to add that carve-out to WP's policy. NedFausa (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for a carve-out, because as Nyttend and OhanaUnited have pointed out above, we are not bound to the precise letter of any "law"; we can use our judgement sensibly when deciding what to do. The ultimate point of any TBan is to mitigate disruptive behavior, not to punish editors by smacking them down for everything that could possibly be construed as a violation of the TBan just because. These edits were not disruptive, nor were they directly connected to British politics post-1978. If Cross had been fiddling about with content on the journalist's views of present-day politics, that might be a different story worth discussing at AE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have a carve-out, it's called the fifth pillar. Levivich 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, any decision by ArbCom that concerns the phrase "broadly construed" should be rephrased immediately to "reasonably construed" otherwise opponents of a person are going to stalk and jump on any edit that can even remotely be connected to someone; this isn't the first instance of this. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Buffs, nope. WP:BROADLY is designed to prevent gaming the system. Guy (help!) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "nibbling on the edges" is poorly defined (at best). It's so nebulous that it could be anything. We're talking about British politics post-1978. How about a politician's actions in 1977, even though he served through 1998? How about someone who retired in 1977, but continued to speak out in political matters. How about a politician who resigned in 1977 but a law was named after him. How about an American politician who was friends with a British politician in 1977 and 1980? How about the laws passed in the US during that timeframe that were influenced by British common law dating back to the Magna Carta but still in effect today? I'm not saying that he was correct, but "reasonably construed" is FAR closer to the intended meaning than "broadly construed" which can be MASSIVELY gamed by opponents for benign edits. I'm saying it's bad verbiage that could be improved. I'll abide by whether the community believes this edit is over the line. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a straightforward violation per WP:BROADLY. A topic ban is "broadly construed" by default, and straightforwardly prohibits making any edit, or editing any page, relating to the subject. The fact that the edits in question are purely uncontentious copyedits is not an exemption, though it is something that can be taken into account in terms of discretionarily sanctioning a violation. The user did violate their topic ban, yes, though given the nature of the edits, they probably warrant a warning as opposed to a block. If minor copyedits in violation of the topic ban continue, though, the topic ban should be enforced. BROADLY is policy, period, and the user should know better. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the admin comment above. Philips has clearly violated the topic ban per WP:BROADLY.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Simple solution from the simple-minded. Philip Cross should be told politely to stop nibbling and make minor improvements outside the area of the topic ban. We have > 5x10⁶ other articles to choose from. OP should be politely asked to stop being a tattle tale.Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  OMG yes. Buffs (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Phillip Cross is once again flouting his ban by editing the page of current UK political journalist Marina Hyde. Since he continues to ignore his ban I suggest his account should be suspended. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be the stick that broke the camel's back.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated the material being edit-warred over by the IP. It contains no reference to politics, at all. This IPs sole contribution to the article is edit-warring on false pretenses. Sharab, you do not appear to be a helpful contributor to this area of Wikipedia, and that is a recurring pattern I have noted since returning to editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the very briefest of references in the article, Marina Hyde is not identified as a political journalist, the article does not contain any direct references to post-1978 British politics. None of her articles on the subject are cited or mentioned. The edit history indicates that I have intermittently edited Marina Hyde's article since the topic ban was imposed over the eighteen months ago. It has intermittently been raised on Twitter by those who watch my edits (the most regular being a banned user) but not, if I recall correctly in any of the AN/I or AE queries. My most recent edits to the article are about her recent Sports Journalist Association Awards. One detail concerning Geoffrey Boycott's recent knighthood might be construed as coming under politics (given who decided on the award), but I have removed that reference. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added that reference to the knighthood as well now, I am under no active editing-restrictions and take full ownership of the edit. The material is reasonably sourced, and significant enough to warrant mention. I have also warned the IP about 3RR (via revert). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Can someone please close this? Enough is enough. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC Position by Round

I started a poll for an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RfC Position by Round, The poll was about not having an over-use of statistics data, per WP:NOSTATS. I think I need an non-involved admin to review for a close. Much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I asked on the project to unarchive the discussion which the bot went and archived too Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 129, However non of the admins that monitor the project haven't unarchived the poll. I was really hoping an admin could help with an unarchive, then read and close the poll so people can see. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Block review of COLONEL77

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

---

I have just indefinitely blocked User:COLONEL77 after consistently rude interactions with other editors and admitted account sharing. As a new admin, I am bringing the block here for others to review. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that User talk:COLONEL77#Warning spurred the block. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Surprised they survived this long. Good block. Slywriter (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with Slywriter that it's a good block, especially on the account sharing alone. As far as I can tell, it goes as far back as March 2019. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll offer an opinion as a new admin myself - then at least one of us can take some flak for our different approaches! My initial assessment (ignoring OKSierra's further link to past issues which caused an edit conflict, and I've not looked into) is that an indefinite block is not really justified. There is certainly evidence that one person (at least) on one occasion did access the account and use it to comment, though not completely as a 'role account' for an organisation, per WP:ROLE, as they were clearly a beginner trying to help a bit. I could not see any evidence of any admin challenging this matter, nor seeking an undertaking to prevent a further breach of our policies on shared accounts (e.g. with a stern warning of a full block if it happened again.) Similarly, the aggressive stance taken by this editor is certainly unacceptable, per WP:CIVIL. Their taking the moral high ground that they're volunteering their time here is rather amusing, as it fails to recognise that every one of us here is also volunteering their time, and some are having to waste it on sorting out this uncivil and overbearing editor. Their block log shows that Cullen328 blocked them for a month last December for copyright infringement; he firstly having made it indefinite, then changed it to 30 days. In your shoes I would probably take the opportunity now to go to their talk page as the blocking admin and either reduce it to a more appropriate length for a first offence - e.g. between a few days to a week, which provides a shot across the bows, whilst at the same time seeking a categorical assurance that they will change their account password so as to prevent shared access when they resume editing, AND an assurance that they will read WP:CIVIL and agree not take such an aggressive attitude with other editors again. Failure to change their approach when interacting with others would then lead to your much longer block. But then, I'm a big softy and like to see content creators do their best, providing they stick to our rules, which this editor clearly hasn't. Hopefully they might do in future, if they fully appreciate the red lines not to cross. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)  

If this is representative of their content work, then I don't see any reason to unblock. Their work was shoddy at best and their attitude was quite childish for someone purporting to be in their 70s. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Colonel has responded to the block on their talk page. A highlight is "was not any kind of joint effort as your idiotic emoji fool claimed" Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 03:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The legal threat is another problem altogether. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a good block to begin with, but we should all thank the Colonel for conclusively removing any doubt. Levivich (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji, I endorse your block. Nick Moyes, you are a kind and generous person, which I think is a wonderful trait, but I do not see any hope of this person becoming a productive and collaborative editor. I made a click mistake when I indeffed him last December and changed that to a one month block one minute later. Since his unblock, he has been combative and insulting and presumptuous, and is insisting that his minor stylistic changes are 100% correct and that everyone else is wrong. He thinks that encyclopedia articles should be written like newspaper sports page write-ups. He disparages the encyclopedia. He admits sharing his password with his wife and allowing her to edit for him. And now, he is making legal threats. I have revoked talk page access and referred him to UTRS. Sorry to be the tough guy when I try to be the nice guy most of the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to concede that I was wrong about them, and that Money emoji's block was appropriate. Like Cullen328 - and thanks for your comments - I always try to WP:AGF to begin with. I have left the editor a farewell message. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block if editor is going to bring poor grammar and WP:OR (e.g. this revert of their edit) and, worst of all, attitude.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Renaming of Chemical Articles

I would like to bring to light that User:Hoa112008 renamed several chemical articles without participating in any kind of discussion. These articles had been at their previous names for several years. This user was blocked on commons for renaming files in an inappropriate manner. Would it be possible for the chemical articles to be reverted back to their previous names? Noah^Talk 00:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoa112008 (talk · contribs) I left a message at WT:WikiProject Chemicals#Renaming of chemical articles requesting their input. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing an issue for administrators here. The user renamed some articles on 10 Feb, some moves were then reversed by several people including me. They have not been repeated. So there is no big issue any more. Some of the renames seem sensible, so they were not necessarily bad. Nothing really to worry about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact this occurred without any kind of discussion when these pages had been at their current titles for years is what alarmed me. He didn't let anyone know about what he was doing when some of these could be controversial. I'm glad that there isn't a large problem with all of these, but it is better to bring this here and be safe rather than sorry. Noah^Talk

Thank you for bringing this here. I'm the blocking admin on commons, and this editor has had multiple warnings about following process and also about licensing policies. Has some good edits, but possibly-substantial WP:CIR problems (too impulsive in the chemistry realm). DMacks (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh look:

• Hoa112008 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoang1032006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the editor's move log. It is a concern that Hoa112008 has never left a talk message, either here or on Commons. They should be warned or blocked if they make further undiscussed moves, or if they keep using both accounts. Their home wiki is probably the Vietnamese Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the standard for somone to move pages could be elevated. Some competence demonstrated for example. A real user page. Demonstration that they can hold a civil conversation.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Are you talking about making it a permission level for any kind of page moving? Noah^Talk 16:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why stop with two accounts? Among others by eye at list of users, with similar behaviors on other wikis, are the stale:

• Hoa122008 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoang42006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks:Are you suggesting that this may rise to the level of global locks with all of the cross-wiki issues? If they are all causing issues on various wikis, it is a serious problem to say the least. Noah^Talk 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The usage of more than one account seems innocuous so far -- the last two accounts mentioned by DMacks have made no edits since 2018. The problem could be inexperience or inattention. I left a message at User talk:Hoang1032006 asking them to limit themself to a single account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We'd need direct abuse on more than one wiki to go global. One of those stale accounts is indef'ed on commons, so there is a concern of evasion (though not on enwiki). The use of multiple accounts is disruptive even if not intentionally so because of the added effort in finding problematic edits that need to be undone, and tracking xwiki. DMacks (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the account Hoang42006 (talk · contribs) is the one that was indefinitely blocked on Commons as of April 26, 2019. (It was blocked for uploading nonfree files). The guy does not respond at all, and may eventually exhaust our patience. But the account that has continued to edit since this AN was filed is Hoa112008 (talk · contribs). Editors from the chemistry project might still want to keep an eye. At this point I am halfway to a block, especially if he won't communicate at all. His newbie status is wearing off fast. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Page move problem

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

---

Hi admins! I've come across an incorrect (technically incorrect) page move which is complicated and I don't have time today to investigate and correct it. There has been a long history of move requests over the title for our article about products which heat tobacco (and sometimes other herbs/chemical mixtures) to a temperature sufficient to vapourize or pyrolize (which word to use is also disputed) the products so that their medicinal/recreational (disputed) components can be inhaled/consumed (disputed) by a user, but which does not burn/ignite/combust (disputed) the herb/chemical (disputed). Apologies for the long, complicated description, but I was following all these discussions loosely and mean to illustrate the complexity and drama involved, and to illustrate that it was somewhat of a win for Wikipedia's consensus model that all of the discussions finally wrapped up last July, landing on the title Heat-not-burn product. It was thus moved to that title.

Today DrNicotiana has in good faith moved the article to a new title, Heated tobacco product, apparently with Doc James' support, but did not move the many talk page archives (which as of this edit start at Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive 1) and was unable to move the article over the redirect which already existed there. Now there's a redirect fronting the archives, and the article and talk page are dissociated. I intervened when they requested deletion of the redirect but that's as far as I can get into it today.

Will a willing administrator please move the article's talk page back to the original title where the archives live, or complete the complex move to "heated tobacco product" if you determine that's more appropriate? I think there are also a minefield of attribution notices which will need to be updated if so. Either way, please move protect the page; its history of moves and merges and splits and various discussions has made it so really only users who are experienced with complicated moves should be trying. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is DrNicotiana. Apologies for botching the move. Can someone else do it properly for me? The reason for the move is that "heated tobacco product" is the name used by the US FDA, US CDC, and WHO (e.g. https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/heated-tobacco-products/en/). "Heat not burn" is a potentially misleading marketing phrase because some of the products do burn some of the constituents. DrNicotiana (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the talk page back and move protected it. Regarding DrNicotiana's request, I think that in light of the history of move requests a new move request would be warranted, assuming that the argument wasn't already brought up in the past cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've correctly posted the move request and I will await the decision. thank you. DrNicotiana (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Redirect at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dickey is a redirect at AfD. I ask an experienced editor to look at it and close/move it to RfD if that's necessary (because I can imagine how it would be a good idea that editors specialising in redirects be the one to discuss a Redirect). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• ✗ Not done. Check the history (and read the AfD discussion); the reason this is at AfD rather than RfD is because it's an article that someone has overwritten with a redirect, and the discussion is regarding whether there's grounds to revert to the article. AfD is the correct place for this. ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To be fair, this is something that also happens at RfD (whether to "restore" article vs. whether to "redirect" at AfD). Either venue works due to the history, but to be technically correct, the article should be restored if it is to be at AfD (at least during the discussion). Since it's already at AfD, I see no reason to move it and I'd say the same if it were at RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock appeal: DonSpencer1

Here's the exact verbiage of the unblock request: I am submitting my second unblock request after more than a year off of Wikipedia after my first request was deferred. I have spent my time since editing Wikimedia Commons in order to, as another editor put it, "[show my] sincerity and [help] establish a track record of ongoing good edits." You can view my work here (1,000+ edits). I was blocked for using multiple accounts; for this I am truly sorry, and realize that it was highly immoral and unethical. In my previous unblock request I have disclosed all my accounts, they were reviewed by a group of editors, and I fielded a Q&A about my sock puppet activities. Indeed, to help out editors in a similar situation I have created the userbox "User former sock" to help remorseful sock-puppeteers get back on track on Wikimedia Commons. If I am allowed to edit Wikipedia again I plan on helping blocked editors on this platform as swell. My hope is, that with a little good faith from the community, I can become a productive and welcomed member of this great project. As I understand it, this request needs to move to WP:AN. As always, let me know if there is anything else I can do. DonSpencer1 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The CU statement from zzuuzz is: Similar to the previous request, there is little for a checkuser to go on, but nothing currently jumps out, and in the absence of other evidence I would have to give it a tentative pass from a CU perspective. Also looking at the previous discussion, it is not clear whether there is private evidence, beyond IP addresses. I don't believe checkusers, or the blocking admin, have a supervote over any unblock, but they are entitled to disclose whether other people have the relevant information to make the decision. With this is mind, I'd suggest that User:Bbb23's opinion on this matter is again sought before taking it further, specifically on the question of whether the community has the relevant information to make the decision. Bbb23 concurred with it. had nothing to add.

There is further discussion at User talk:DonSpencer1#unblock discussion and User talk:DonSpencer1#Community Unblock. Since the editor is community-banned per WP:3X, their unblock needs to be appealed at AN. I hope my colleagues will give them a fair assessment. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I did not "concur"; I said I had "nothing to add".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Alright, fixed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm still uncertain of my viewpoint, I need to go have a more detailed look at their Commons work. In any case, it would be contingent on a single-account limitation. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ping past participants
@Kuru, Zzuuzz, Deepfriedokra, and Berean Hunter: qedk (t 桜 c) 21:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't receive that ping for some reason, maybe it didn't work. Personally I have no objections to this type of unblock situation. Blocks can be cheap. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since the participation seems to be on the low side here, I do not have any objection to an unblock as well, given that I participated in this, I will not be closing this anymore. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think it would be fine to unblock per WP:ROPE, with the "must maintain only 1 account" restriction. They seem to have done all of the right things. --Jayron32 16:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with one account restriction per Jayron. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Cthomas3 appointed full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Cthomas3 (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as a full clerk, effective immediately.

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cthomas3 appointed full clerk

Backlog at AIV

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

---

Some admin hands needed at wP:AIV. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 05:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Deceased wikipedian

User:Tsirel died last month (see User_talk:Tsirel#Your_problem, Talk:Boris_Tsirelson#Death, announcement); could an administrator do whatever protection etc. of his userpage as is appropriate in this case?

Also, not an administrative matter, but: I have tried and failed to create an archived copy of the death announcement from TAU using the Wayback Machine; is there someone who understands how these things work who could do it properly?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, it looks like archive.org was doing something the site didn't like. I saved a copy at archive.today for you here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, May he rest in peace. I have protected his user page and added the deceased notice. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea and Money emoji: Thank you both very much with your assistance with this sad task. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Boris Tsirelson was a famous mathematician who made mathematical news quite recently. An important math problem (Tsirelson's problem) that he proposed many years back was solved (pending review) a month or two ago. His death also made the news, at least in math circles. I had no idea that he had also been editing here on Wikipedia though (and it looks like he was quite active here). RIP. 2601:640:10D:A93F:7B21:62B7:1637:847E (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Some admin please remove his reviewer flag.--GZWDer (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer request by User:Krish!

Moved from WP:ANI § User:Krish! requesting Standard Offer consideration

--qedk (t 桜 c) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Krish! is requesting unblock consideration per the Standard Offer. Their unblock request can be found at User talk:Krish!#Standard offer appeal. A while back, Krish! was part of a nucleus of strong editors of Indian entertainment content. That population has dwindled a bit in recent years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ROPE. Their request seems sincere, and checks all of the standard unblock boxes. I have no problem letting them back into the fold. --Jayron32 16:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as above. Seems they have matured since the block. Lets give them the chance to show they've changed. Many of their edits were very good and useful and if they have indeed matured then they'll be an asset to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Berean Hunter: any comments? And since this is a CU-block, {{Checkuser needed}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter and I are consulting and may not have a response until tomorrow as it's already getting late.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• No apparent socking seen and no objections on our end.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support, notwithstanding the need for a CU-check, all the usual boxes seem ticked - they seem calm and there's nothing problematic in their request. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per Nosebagbear, having read the appeal at the user page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as long as a CU check comes back to say there has been no more socking. WP:ROPE. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• As CUs have come back to say there has been no more socking, my support is unconditional. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Since Berean has no objections, and since Krish! has done a great, thoughtful job of acknowledging past problems and providing an assertion that the future will be better, I would like to welcome Krish! back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support-- Now that the sock check has come back negative, I have no problems supporting this very excellent unblock request. Reyk _YO! 05:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - okay this seems clear, who should do the actual lifting? Canterbury Tail talk 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Could someone revert this edit

Dirk Beetstra broke working archive links for no reason. I was going to revert this as "unhelpful, the links works and are relevant to the talk page, that scholaryoa got hijacked and now disallows archiving is irrelevant.", but I'm getting blocked by the blacklist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because "scholarlyoa" is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. You'd need to ask for unblacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals or whitelisting a specific link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Admins can't bypass the blacklist? That's ... unexpected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It might be unexpected, but it's nonetheless true. (It makes sense when one thinks about it, as otherwise it would be too easy to accidentally revert to a version containing a spam link.) ‑ Iridescent 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well it could still throw a warning. Anyway, I'll be on the other forums I suppose. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete the problem revision? It might be described as 'non-contentious housekeeping'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Headbomb, it appears that you didn't notify Beetstra of this thread.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Burma-shave-notice|aninotice|layout=horiozontal}}

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC) lol fail OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Burma-shave|When adding|big red walls of shame|adjust your rhyming|for {{pagename}}}} —Cryptic 13:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

beautiful. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the last time I try to do anything funny or witty before having coffee in the morning. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's really annoying if admins can't bypass the filter. There are occasional reasons besides archiving to link to spam (or whatever) on purpose. Can stewards bypass the filter? Is one here? Also, BEANS. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You can get around the filter. But, better to have it whitelisted if there is a good reason. I don't see a good reason here. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No one can override the spam blacklist directly, you would need to remove the entry or make the edit without the offending text match. If you think being able to bypass that blacklist is a good idea, feel free to leave a note at phab:T36928. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The good reason to bypass the blacklist is to preserve the integrity of archived pages that got messed up, as happened here. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I broke these links because these links were disabling archiving. That is an exercise I do regularly as these blacklist hits eventually make the log even more unreadable than it already is.

The spam blacklist cannot be circumvented, You'd need to get the links whitelisted, which likely is not going to happen for the sake of talk page discussions (yes, it is an annoyance that you have to copy-paste-unbreak the link, but white listing requests like this would give a significant overload to an already back logged area, and white listing would also allow these links in main space where many discussed links should never appear). It are links in discussions, they are perfectly fine to have them text-only there.

Force WMF to solve this problem, it is 14 years they ignore this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I almost restored the links, but then reading Beetstra's comment here, I realised that he did this intentionally as a housekeeping measure. I'll respect that decision and not restore the links. Admins, if you encounter a link that was removed unintentionally or wrongly (e.g. a vandal blanks a page), there are two routes to restoring it without whitelisting. (1) If the link were removed in the last edit or series of edits, just use rollback, since it's unaffected by the blacklist. Be sure to restore all the other changes that were made in the edit, and use an edit summary explaining why you used rollback. It's not one of the standard reasons for rollback, but WP:IAR; if it really is an improvement to have that link there, it's fine to use any technical route to get there, as long as you don't cause other problems (which this won't) and you clarify that you're not treating the edit as inappropriate. (2) Delete the page, restore all revisions before the removal, make a dummy edit with an edit summary explaining what's happening, and then restore the removal. When a with-link revision is the latest undeleted edit, it's like editing the page before it got removed: the software doesn't see you adding anything, so it allows the edit. When you restore the post-removal edits, the history will look like you merely reverted those edits, so of course go back and put back whatever constructive changes were made. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Any reason not to block this LA school range?

User:204.102.54.0/17 which is an LA school district, but every edit I've looked at is vandalism. I might have missed something though. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally block vandalism only school IP's ( ranges not so much). I allow account creation on the off chance that a constructive editor will emerge. Some people think that school ranges/IP's are ever flowing founts of constructive encyclopedia building. This is not always the case. One must judge on a case by case basis. What I have seen is a series of escalating blocks-- start small and increase the duration of blocks successively-- for the progressively recalcitrant.. Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious whether these people that think of (primary and secondary) school IPs as sources of constructive edits have actually met a bored middle-schooler in a computer class. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Welp. I know I have.Deepfriedokra (talk)

A /17 blocks 32,000 addresses. Having said that, I see little likelihood of collateral damage.Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

When we do have to block schools, it should be for a short period; I suggest we normally escalate too drastically. The idea is discourage trouble-makers; they can't be stopped, for if they want to, they'll be able to edit from elsewhere.. From what I remember of pranks, a week will usually end the joke. I don't really think people that age are nastier now,and certainly not more persistent, in view of the greater diversity of opportunities.. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: your experience of school blocks is very different from mine. Too often I find that when a block expires only vandalism continues. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

My view of school blocks is that we should almost never use them--and never use a library block. We can deal with the usual sort of vandalism much better than when the range blocks for such purposes were introduced. As I have discovered that this is not the consensus, I normally don't get involved. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: General Sanctions for Coronavirus related articles

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

---

In light of the significant volume of disruption and edit wars occuring on Coronavirus and related articles, I am proposing that any articles related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak be subject to community-authorized discretionary sanctions and 1RR. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see the level of disruption applying to the whole category of articles rising to the level requiring general sanctions. Natureium (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Christopher Langan

• Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should community sanctions be imposed for this topic? It is covered by this Arbcom case but I don't think there are any discretionary sanctions. Sanctions might be premature but I do not see why established editors should have to waste time handling the several SPAs.

The article is mentioned in this BLPN report. The reporter is DrL who wrote "I am the wife of the subject of this bio" and "My husband kicked him [a named editor] out of our Facebook group 2 years ago and he has been hounding Chris ever since. He has set up Facebook and Patreon groups, using our brand, to mock him and divert our potential members". The original post has been partially redacted to remove what might have been outing. DrL has not been permitted to edit the article since Arbcom 2006.

Prior to 23 February 2020, the last edit at Talk:Christopher Langan was in October 2019. In the last five days, several SPAs have dominated Talk:Christopher Langan and made numerous edits to the article. The SPAs include 90.219.111.127 + 213.129.69.67 + 221.124.51.249 and the following users.

User	Created	EditCount
DrL (talk · contribs)	2005-12-15	1057
EarlWhitehall (talk · contribs)	2020-02-23	146
Johnnyyiu (talk · contribs)	2014-10-14	44
Mich.Szczesny (talk · contribs)	2020-02-09	10
Nigerian chess player (talk · contribs)	2020-02-23	27
ZenMechanics (talk · contribs)	2020-02-23	10

Questions

1. Should the article, its talk page, and all discussions regarding the topic be subject to community sanctions?
2. Should the editors named in the above table be restricted so they are unable to edit the article but can only comment constructively on the talk page?

Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1 + 2 as proposer. It is unacceptable that Wikipedia be used to continue an off-wiki battle between the subject and his detractors regardless of the WP:FRINGE nature of some content. It is also unacceptable that neutral editors should be tied up with SPAs on a mission that has obviously been coordinated off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is already covered under BLP discretionary sanctions, and arguably pseudoscience as well. I would suggest the strategy here is to alert the above-mentioned editors, and issue a page ban or partial block for anyone adding poorly-sourced content or other BLP violations. This can be done by any uninvolved administrator. – bradv🍁 06:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've just gone ahead and issued them all DS alerts for the BLP topic area. – bradv🍁 06:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I can't speak for the other individuals on your list, but I am certainly not part of any coordinated effort to attack Langan. DrL, who claims to be the wife of Langan and has been blocked from editing Langan's page in the past, has accused me of having a personal vendetta against him, despite the fact that I have never met or conversed with him.

Anyhow, I have no further plans to edit the page. Most of my edits have been to correct grammatical errors, with the only original contribution being to mention Ben Goertzel's criticisms of the CTMU. I hope my edits have been constructive. Thanks. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth doing an SPI? I considered opening one myself yesterday but decided to wait a bit longer and see if anyone had any further thoughts. (I raised the issue at BLPN.) While these are probably just meatpuppets, it seems to me socking is easily possible. @EarlWhitehall: frankly your response raises significantly more concerns than it resolves. It's simply not plausible that you, who have never edited any other article before, would just happen to show up at the same time as a bunch of other editors to edit this obscure article, and only this article. The fact you would say such a thing suggests to me you shouldn't be editing anything related point blank. Not even talk pages. It's one thing to come here in response to some off-wiki discussion. It's quite another to claim it didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone with more experience will need to double check, but 213.129.69.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should probably be blocked as a webhost or colocation service, or maybe proxy. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Where did I say that there was no off-Wiki discussion, or that I don't know any of the other editors? I didn't say either of those things, did I? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that there is no "coordinated effort to attack Langan". That is a true statement. EarlWhitehall (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: I don't really give a damn about dumb semantics. You're just re-enforcing my view that you have no business being anywhere near the article. If you were honest from the beginning rather than playing around with dumb semantics, maybe I would have come to the view that you were here to create an encyclopaedia. When you play around with dumb semantics, you just prove my point you're not. Also, please learn to WP:Indent your posts. P.S. In case it escaped you attention, I purposely worded my initial response carefully since I recognised perhaps you were playing around with dumb semantics. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I am not playing any semantic games. I literally did not say the thing that you are accusing me of saying, so please calm down.

Oh, and I prefer to indent my posts so that they are level with the person I am responding to. But if that's an issue for you, then I can do it your way instead. I don't want to make you any angrier. EarlWhitehall (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I just recognise you're clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia by your decision to be intentionally misleading in how you arrived at the article. You therefore have no business being anywhere near this WP:BLP. And it's not my way. It's the communities way. Please read the page I linked for you. There is a reason why I linked it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Maybe you should just ask me why I came here. Doesn't that make more sense than inventing wild conspiracy theories? I mean, most of the people on that list above were opposing my suggested edits, so how in the world am I coordinating an attack against Langan with them? I came here with "Nigerian chess player" to correct some misleading information on Langan's page, and there was absolutely no malicious intent. EarlWhitehall (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

OMG. Community sanctions are mostly for topics like political controversies where lots of editors are battling, while I doubt many actually separate people are messing with the Langan article. So community sanctions don't seem warranted. But yes, please do very thorough sock checks. The history of this topic area is completely crazy. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2 but I'm going further in supporting a full topic ban for all except for Dr L who has at least honestly declared their connection for EarlWhitehall. EarlWhitehall's responses have convinced me the others have no business being here. I'm not opposed to 1 but for the reasons outlined by BradV, I'm not sure if it's worth adding community sanctions for this area. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Could you try not to let your emotions cloud your judgement? I understand that I have annoyed you somehow, but I don't think you should use that as an excuse to argue for my being blocked from editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlWhitehall (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the way they had behaved on the talk page, I expected that we were mostly dealing with socks or editors of the same ilk. But this wasn't a fair judgment so I apologise for tainting the others with EarlWhitehall. I also withdrawn my support for a topic ban except for EarlWhitehall, who's behaviour since then has proven even further that they have no business being on that BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Please have mercy on me. I want to make up for my past mistakes, and become a respected Wikipedia contributor. I believe in second chances – don't you? EarlWhitehall (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

• Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed under indefinite Pending Changes.
• The following are topic-blocked from the article but allowed to edit Talk:

DrL (talk · contribs)

EarlWhitehall (talk · contribs)

Johnnyyiu (talk · contribs)

Mich.Szczesny (talk · contribs)

Nigerian chess player (talk · contribs)

ZenMechanics (talk · contribs)

• Disruptive use of Talk will lead to topic bans or sitewide blocks.

I think that covers it.

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 12:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) EarlWhitehall (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Personal attack right above validates that at least one and likely all at here from an off-wiki area to cause disruption.(should I have removed that immediately as rpa?, Or better for an admin on this board to do so?) Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Slywriter: I already took care of it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked EarlWhitehall for 48 hours for some of their posts (now removed) in this thread. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC).

Earlwhitehall , that was inappropriate no matter how understandable your frustration is. Nigerian Chess player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigerian chess player (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support both pending changes and the proposed bans from directly editing the page. I'd be curious where this offwiki coordination is happening. As an aside, I'm surprised those sudden PAs from EarlWhitehall, and subsequent disruption on their talk page, only earned them a 48 hour block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Adding a note that it might be worth considering interaction bans for some of the parties. There is some conversation happening over at User talk:DrL which looks like one of the SPAs and DrL antagonizing each other: [1] GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @GW I do apologize for outing the SPA but note that I used his first name after he used mine and only I was redacted and banned. Still, it won't happen again. ~ DrL (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Appreciate the reassurance it won't happen again. As for your first name, I'm not sure that can be considered outing, given you have self-identified as Langan's wife, and your name is included in the biography. But I'm not stepping in on administrative matters here, since I've been editing the article, so if you feel someone needs to be sanctioned for it I'd recommend asking an uninvolved admin, who can make that call instead of me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support both, and I BOLDly went ahead and submitted the RfPP - regardless of any restrictions placed on the editors in question, the BLP issues need to stop right now. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Without taking a position on this request, I have acted on the RFPP and applied semi-protection for one week. Even with pending changes protection, any BLP violations will remain in the edit history which is less than desirable. To the extent that there is imminent and ongoing disruption that needs stopped, semi-protection is a better course than PC protection. In the long run PC protection may be better, and so this discussion is still important to determine a long term solution. One thing to note while this discussion continues is that some of the accounts involved appear to be autoconfirmed or soon to be autoconfirmed, and should semi-protection not resolve the imminent BLP concerns, any administrator may (and perhaps should) raise the protection to extended confirmed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support this proposal. I think the additions/suggestions of the SPAs did lead to some useful content that GorillaWarfare was able to include so working with the SPAs on the talk page does not seem useless at this point. Looking at those personal attacks and behavior afterward by EarlWhitehall I also wonder why that was not a longer or indef block. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support and I'm happy to withdraw my original request for community sanctions if this can be implemented. It might be worth considering what should occur if any new accounts pop up. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support I respectfully request that this BLP be protected under Wikipedia Pending Changes. It's been established that numerous SPA with a prior history with Mr. Langan have been attacking his bio for the past week. In matters concerning BLPs, Wikipedia Policy is to err on the side of caution. It would make sense to further protect the article until things settle down (and before certain users bans expire). Thanks in advance for your consideration. ~ DrL (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum - I respectfully request that the article be rolled back to last October the last edit before the trolls came in last week and discuss the editing from there. There is a lot of defamation in the article because of the lack of NPOV. Again this errs on the side of caution when dealing with a BLP.~ DrL (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I spent a decent amount of time a few days ago ensuring claims in the article were properly sourced, and removing unsourced material. I think we should discuss the article starting from how it exists now, rather than restore some uncited claims (which we would be doing if we rolled back to October) and removing other, cited information. If you have specific concerns I'd love to hear them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Support maintaining GorillaWarfare's version. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
        • My particular concern is the baffler material. I do not know what Justin Ward's credentials are (I can find nothing notable) or what his beef is with Chris but he has taken material out of context and offered a minority opinion regarding Mr. Langan's viewpoint. Kindly remove the paragraph which relies solely on Ward's opinions rather than Langan's words. I can show you were it goes wrong, replacing fact with simple opinion and selective editing. I respectfully request that this paragraph be removed and discussed pending community input. The paragraph is causing great harm to Mr. Langan's reputation and we are accruing unjustified damages and losses because of it. Per WP:BLP a conservative approach must be taken with regards to BLPs. This obvious hit piece, written by a nonnotable individual with a clear agenda is unduly weighted in this short bio. It would be consistent with stated policy to therefore remove the paragraph until it can be properly vetted and, at minimum, accompanied by properly balanced material. ~ DrL (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
          • I suggest you take this to the talk page, since this isn't the place for content disputes. I don't see why you would need a roll back to October to deal with a single sentence anyway. (AFAICT, there are only 2 sentences sources to the Baffler/Chris Ward in the current version. One is on the CTMU, so maybe his expertise matters. The other is simply a comment on the views being racist and antisemetic so requires no significant expertise.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I'll note that that section is based on two sources, not one: the Baffler article and an article in The Forward. Both seem to meet the requirements at WP:NEWSORG, and a search for both at WP:RSN turns up no concerns (the opposite for The Forward, which has been confirmed there as a reliable source; The Baffler does not appear to have been discussed at RSN before). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support although I still believe as articulated above that EarlWhitehall has no business anywhere near that article including the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per GW. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support: GW sums it up nicely, and I also echo the sentiments regarding EarlWhitehall's behavior, 48 hours was a shockingly short period of time for the level of personal attacks delivered. The fact that they continued after the block, and that they were attempting to pass them off as humour is very concerning to me. My advice is to keep them on a short leash and have absolute zero tolerance for any further such behavior. Waggie (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Review of User:SnøhettaAS block please

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

---

Hi @Yunshui: and colleagues, SnøhettaAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified as a (role account or?) sockpuppet of Leilaoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm not sure if I have the chronology of the blocks correct, but it looks like they were blocked for these edits which do not appear to breach the standard of behavior requiring a preventative block, although I am sure Snøhetta's interest must be declared. Would you please review and unblock either or both with at least a 120 day probationary period requested in the unblock log notes? Please see also this Board of Trustees statement. Thank you for your kind attention to this request. EllenCT (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

So, from what I can tell, SnøhettaAS was the initially blocked user, and was only blocked for having a promotional username and editing the company's article. 331dot declined the unblock, saying that while the user's choice of rename (Leilaoes) was acceptable, the user still needed to confirm that only one person would use the account, that they would comply with our COI and paid editor policies, and was asked about what topics they wished to edit in. Rather than drafting another unblock request to address this, the user then created another account shortly thereafter and edited the article anyway, which prompted Leilaoes to get blocked for sockpuppetry/block evasion.

Long story short, I firmly believe that it's a good block, and should remain until the user commits to using a single account only, addresses the block evasion in their unblock request, and pledges to comply with our terms of use, conflict-of-interest, and paid editing policies. I don't really consider Snøhetta's business relationship with the Foundation to be germane to the user's unblock request. As an aside, if they're working with the Foundation, they should know better to have respect for the editing community's policies and practices. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I offered to help, based on my recent help with corporate COI editing. EllenCT (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Urgent admin attention needed at WP:ANRFC

This is possibly one of the most backlogged page on this project. Any administrator (or experienced editor) is requested to help out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

UAA backlog

Hello all, it looks like there is a backlog over at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Some requests have been there since yesterday morning. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi riots

This is a heads up and request for more eyes on this article North East Delhi riots and the talk page.

The talk page is currently protected. (I confess when I first glanced at the talk page I was slightly surprised to see the protection, but take a glance at Archive 2 and you will see why.) The protection is scheduled to end tomorrow.

I handled roughly 20 reports to OTRS complaining about this article — I don't know how many were handled by other agents, but almost all of them have been advised to open a discussion on the talk page so there may be a flurry of activity tomorrow when the talk page protection expires. My hope is that with enough eyes on the page, we can handle the contributions rather than having to extend protection.

This article undoubtedly contributes to the issue. See also:

• User_talk:El_C#North_East_Delhi_riots
• ANI thread

--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• On a lighter note, though, may I introduce User:DBigXRay, or, as he is now known from that article, a senior Wikipedia editor that hoes by the username DBigXray. Does he indeed!  ;) ——SN54129 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• But yeah, that talk page is going to light up like July the 4th tomorrow. All hands to the pump. ——SN54129 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Also articles in Jihad Watch and OpIndia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129, That is a mirror of this site which (As Gråbergs Gråa Sång rightly puts), is an Indian version of InfoWars). Not sure if it was a typo or deliberate, either way it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

1RR has been added to the article. Three users blocked. As mentioned, talk page protected for one day — hopefully, my pointers are adhered to, because a repeat of today's insanity will not be sustainable — and if repeated, I lean toward protecting the talk page for a week or so next, as much as it pains me to do so. El_C 19:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C, looking at the page history POV redaction using multiple reverts in violation of 1RR have already been done. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please submit a report at AE or AN3 for 1RR enforcement, with all the documentation attached. El_C 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Takijeg398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin hide the threats from this user on my talk. Apparently I am going to be hunted down, very soon. If so, I want the community to know that it was a pleasure being here. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Also I believe he is a sock of User:Biman1989 (blocked by Bbb23) as the language is same as its socks and harassment emails I have been getting lately. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Requesting my userpage and user talk be semi protected to discourage further socking. I have already disabled Emails. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, much appreciated. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

---

• 2 hours back, a Twitter handle with 262K followers has asked people to storm this article. [2] --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  DBigXray, I'm not sure whether it's that or the other biased articles that have been written, but I just handled 29 inquiries at OTRS on this subject in the last hour. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

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

• For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Kudpung's administrative user rights are removed. He may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
• Kudpung is admonished for failing to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator. In future, he is urged to ensure that he remains civil in his interactions with both new and regular editors, and responds to feedback on his conduct objectively and with an assumption of good faith.
• Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in the dispute resolution process. The community is reminded that attempting to have a community-wide discussion of problematic behavior early on can prevent unnecessary escalations.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

Longterm extremely productive administrators should not be desysopped without sufficient cause or a second chance

I made a thread with this title at WT:ACN referring to the recent desysop of two renowned admins in rapid succession by the newly constituted ArbCom, but my thread title was removed by an arbitrator and the post placed under the Kudpung case thread, which it was not specifically about. Since the point in question is not Kudpung but the desysopping of at least two longterm extremely productive administrators without sufficient cause (serious infraction) or a second chance, I am reposting my header here, and will post a link to the moved post and its replies: here (if I did that right; if I didn't someone please fix). Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I saw the three recent desysoppings as fundamentally different. IMO a desysopping should primarily hinge on misuse of the administrator tools.

• RHaworth kept deleting things under inappropriate CSD rationales, even after having been told to stop repeatedly. There's not much question about this one.
• Kudpung kept making obscure and cryptic threats against people he dislikes. Although the only bit of direct tool misuse I'm aware of was nuking an IP editor for correctly placing a maintenance tag, his vague threats and promises of "investigation"s carried with them the implied threat of using the admin toolset to do it. Taking away the admin bit at least puts peoples minds at ease that he's not going to go poking around in peoples' deleted edits hunting for gotchas, or placing bogus blocks, or whatnot. I agree with this desysop too.
• BrownHairedGirl was desysopped for being a grouch and saying to people who weren't telling the truth that they were not telling the truth. There was no abuse of admin powers. ArbCom's risible finding of fact "BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals" was the hook they used to hang her desysop on, but these were correct MfD closings and completely irrelevant to BHG's trial. It was designed to look like an adverse finding without actually being one, and I have to say really skeevy behaviour from ArbCom.

• That's my $0.02. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• How is saying someone has "low intellgence" part of either being a grouch or saying "to people who weren't telling the truth that they were not telling the truth"? Nil Einne (talk)

• It seems pretty grouchy to me. Reyk _YO! 14:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Seeing ArbCom take heed of the community's concerns actually makes it a whole heck of a lot easier for me to cast "support" votes at RfA knowing if I made a mistake it is no longer for life. It's not like they're banned from being an admin; all can seek a new RfA, and one of them might actually succeed. The bar for removal should be low and also should be easier, and it also should be NOBIGDEAL. Apparently, mere temperament is enough for the community to react, not just tool use. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but in all three cases (and indeed, in dozens of threads concerning the three named former administrators above) they've largely evaded the level of sanctions that would be applied to a conventional editor were they to behave in the same way. Kudpung's intimidation and harassment of good-faith editors should have resulted in blocks, not just a desysop; any non administrator would have been hit with lengthy blocks for making those sorts of implied and sometimes explicit threats. Nick (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• If you have a proposal, go to WP:VPP and get consensus, or if you just want to talk about your ideas go to WP:VPI. Cluttering this board with nothing that can be done here is useless or disruptive. Your appealing to administrators on their notice broad to argue for more elaborate restrictions on the already elaborately protected against desyoping process is a bad idea, in and of itself. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• It is well established that admins can be desysopped for reasons other than abuse of admin tools. WP:ADMINCOND says that admins must uphold good standards of conduct, follow policies and not engage in disruptive editing. Desysopping people for persistently failing to follow the admin policy, as these three admins did, is hardly unreasonable. And if you think it is then I suggest you try explaining that view to someone who doesn't edit here, and see if it makes any sense to them at all. Hut 8.5 16:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Kudpung had a second chance. There was an arb case where he had the opportunity to respond to issues, acknowledge his mistakes, and make some kind of commitment to clean up his act. He chose not to do that. He didn't participate in the case at all, but instead commented on it and in some cases took pot shots at the arbitrators at various other places around the wiki while the case was going on. I'm satisfied by Mkdw's post in the ACN thread, that someone who ignores an arb case while keeping on editing shouldn't be let off with a warning. 173.228.123.39 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Francesco Sidoti

• Francesco Sidoti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pedro Scuro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Scuro
• Peiris Fox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To the Administrator. Last week I edited a page on Francesco Sidoti and, exclusively by my own mistake I clicked on an old entry [Pedro Scuro] the subject of a bitter discussion with one or two editors, on account of the entry having "promotional content under criterion G11" (!?). The facts occurred years ago and their allegations were so outlandish that I simply gave up publishing the text altogether. There was absolutely no "promotional content" whatsoever, as the subject of the entry is a highly regarded intellectual with important contributions to his fields of knowledge, and a member of prestigious international organizations. He was also my former mentor, so I would have never wanted to put him or his work in any embarrassing circumstance. Nevertheless, as I concede that one might always be in the wrong, it would be much more profitable if my fault-finders disclose exactly where exactly my text was "promotional". On the other hand, over and above all that unpleasant hugger-mugger, I'm now trying to publish a new entry, on Francesco Sidoti, so I'm awaiting your kind reply. Yours, Peiris Fox (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Peiris Fox. You haven't made any recent edits on either of the articles named above (which don't currently exist) but you might be referring to this draft which you recently made about Francesco Sidoti on your own user talk (and then removed). See WP:AFC for the best way to create a new article. The problems that were found with the former Pedro Scuro article (from early 2018) are described in WP:Articles for deletion/Pedro Scuro. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Tseung kang 99 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, User:Tseung kang 99 is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 13:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Tseung kang 99 unblocked

Personal attack and review of wider issue

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

---

I would like to draw your attention to a Wikipedian insinuating that I am foolish. Does this conduct meet community norms? Please may you assist me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ear-phone#Request_for_comment Ear-phone (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Please may you also help with the issue at hand.

That is not a personal attack. Read WP:N. Praxidicae (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Saying "you did something foolish" is not the same thing as saying "you are foolish". Reyk _YO! 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does not create a conducive editing environment for less experienced editors like myself. It may be technicalities and semantics you use, but it's straight forward. If someone does something foolishly, the implication is that they are a fool. Ear-phone (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither does repeatedly recreating deleted content. Calling someone out for acting foolishly is not the same as calling them a fool.Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We all do foolish things from time to time. That does not mean that we are all fools. Yep, this is semantics, which is one of the more important parts of language, not just a technicality. "You foolishly [did this]" is not a personal attack. --bonadea contributions talk 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I re-created the article once and then expanded it to the best of my ability, including leaving a reason why it should not be deleted on it's talk page as per the tag. The foolish comment made by the Wikipedian is having a negative effect on me. Ear-phone (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) On the issue of the deleted article, on their Talk page I suggested that Ear-phone create the article in draft space, but their response was "You have deleted it. I'm now exhausted and stressed to start again." I am more than happy to restore the article to draft space if that helps the user's "stress".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ear-phone has now requested that it be restored to draft, and I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing the delete. The comments you made are hurtful. Ear-phone (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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