Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Deleting JavaScript pages: new section |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 574: | Line 574: | ||
== Deleting JavaScript pages == |
== Deleting JavaScript pages == |
||
Hello, could an admin please kindly delete the following pages under CSD U1 |
Hello, could an admin please kindly delete the following pages under CSD U1 [[User:Krett12/common.js]] [[User:Krett12/sandbox.js]] , as CSD templates may not be applied to JavaScript pages. Thanks. [[User:Krett12|Krett12]] ([[User talk:Krett12|talk]]) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:25, 16 May 2020
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 29 | 10 | 39 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 9 sockpuppet investigations
- 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 17 Fully protected edit requests
- 6 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 48 elapsed requested moves
- 4 Pages at move review
- 14 requested closures
- 104 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 12 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Relevant accounts:
- GargAvinash (talk · contribs · count)
- Kumargargavinash (talk · contribs · count)
- ADPS (talk · contribs · count)
Recently, one of my NPPSCHOOL students, GargAvinash, made an unprompted confession that they had previously been blocked on two other accounts, Kumargargavinash and ADPS. A few days earlier, they had made unblock requests on their originally blocked account, which were declined by ToBeFree and Yamla (see here). Other than these requests, they do not appear to have made any edits between when the first puppet was blocked (July 2018) and when the most recent account was created (January 2020), and prior to that had also taken a long break between September 2017 and July 2018. On the most recent account, GargAvinash appears to have been editing productively in good faith, and has even received autopatrol permissions while also training for NPP. With all that said, I'll leave it to this noticeboard to determine how to proceed with this case. signed, Rosguill talk 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Would it be an overreaction to apply WP:G5 and WP:BE where applicable, indefinitely block the sock account and insist on a proper unblock appeal in no less than six months? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- As a very minimum measure I insist on, I have removed the trust-based autopatrolled flag from the account. Ping Swarm who had been tricked into adding it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Holy hell, thanks for revoking. I was on the fence about this one and I went against my gut because I couldn't rationalize any strong reason to decline. But this makes two in a row uncontentious, "academic", single-focus, minor article creators who I tried to trust in spite of my doubts and had to have the tool revoked almost immediately due to their being revealed as apparent paid or promotional editors. Lesson learned, no more putting trust above security concerns in these cases. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Swarm, minor side note, but what do you mean by "academic" in the above comment? signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: I mean that the creations appear to have a straightforward "academic" focus and intent, which gives the user the appearance of being credible, benign and here to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. I generally would not grant Autopatrolled to single-purpose stub creators, but a perceived "academic" motivation would make me more likely to trust them. In this case, Garg was focused on academic institutions. In the other, the user was a supposed astronomer who merely wanted to work on the backlog of celestial bodies lacking articles (I don't recall their name, but I will dig up the case if you want me to; they immediately created a promotion piece after being granted Autopatrolled. This was explained to me by someone as being a known sock tactic.) ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Swarm, minor side note, but what do you mean by "academic" in the above comment? signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Holy hell, thanks for revoking. I was on the fence about this one and I went against my gut because I couldn't rationalize any strong reason to decline. But this makes two in a row uncontentious, "academic", single-focus, minor article creators who I tried to trust in spite of my doubts and had to have the tool revoked almost immediately due to their being revealed as apparent paid or promotional editors. Lesson learned, no more putting trust above security concerns in these cases. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted: Krishan Nandan Prasad Verma and Shailesh Kumar (politician) had just one single revision created by GargAvinash, unambiguously qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Putting aside the rationale for deleting the pair, how do they stand on their own merits? As I view them in their deleted states, they're so amply referenced that they're hard to read; but my impression is that this is conscientious referencing rather than refbombing, that these were worthwhile if unremarkable articles, that their loss is a (minor) misfortune, and that (if we put aside the history for a moment) this is an editor who's an asset to the project. I'm open to being corrected. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted: Krishan Nandan Prasad Verma and Shailesh Kumar (politician) had just one single revision created by GargAvinash, unambiguously qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- In those unblock requests, or on talkpage of GargAvinash, I did not see the statement stating the two other accounts belong to them. Could you please link to it? Or was that statement made off-wiki? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I believe this is the admission that Rosguill is referring to. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I tried to create a timeline, but the amount of diffs to compile for the eight failed unblock requests alone made me give up. The confession has been made 2020-05-04 in Special:Diff/954768512 at User_talk:Rosguill/GargAvinash_NPPSCHOOL. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I don't see how blocking the GargAvinash account would be WP:PREVENTATIVE, on the other, blocked users circumventing declined unblocks by creating new accounts is probably not something to be encouraged even if they are entirely good faith and helpful. This isn't the first case of that I've seen on this board, so maybe it's worth looking at broader patterns to resolve this. To this specific request, I'd say let GargAvinash continue editing as GargAvinash, and leave the two previous accounts blocked with a tag stating they are former accounts of GargAvinash. I just struggle to convince myself that blocking Garg would be preventative. I trust Rosguill's judgment, and he's clearly keeping an eye on the account, so I'm not very concerned that disruption will return. — Wug·a·po·des 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not sure what to think for this case. On the one hand, I agree that there isn't anything really preventative about blocking now, I have yet to notice any significant issues in their editing since the block was lifted, and the most recent unblock requests seem to be reasonable explanations for past editing behavior, and they seemingly had very little to gain by confessing out of the blue. The argument could also be made that the break between 2018 and 2020 could be taken as "time served" for a standard offer unblock. On the other hand, the unblock requests in 2017 and 2018 strike me as less good faith, in some cases clearly deceptive given more recent confessions, and I'm at a loss as to why they requested an unblock on the old account about a week ago. That the original block was related to promotional editing is further concerning for an editor that's beelined to requesting NPP and autopatrol, even if they haven't done anything to suggest abuse on the new account. The reasons for my not immediately revoking autopatrol were that it seemed like it would be cleaner to just implement whatever decision was made at the end of this discussion, with the knowledge that any attempt to use the permission disruptively in the meantime would be quickly caught and make our decision much more straightforward.
- Right now, I'm wondering if the best way to handle this would be to allow them to continue editing, but to indefinitely ban them from requesting additional permissions such as NPP or autopatrol. This would allow them to continue editing productively, while also keeping them away from giving them tools that are reserved for trusted editors. These bans could be reviewed down the road in a few years if there's strong evidence of committed good faith editing. signed, Rosguill talk 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's all very weird, especially how the COI concerns play in with NPP. I think the ban on permissions other than autoconfirmed and extended confirmed is a good idea. To the extent that they may have a COI or are an UPE, obviously we want to limit the damage, and I think the ban would do that effectively without losing potential positive contributions. — Wug·a·po·des 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add a {{checkuser needed}} here, as checkuser evidence was used for declining at least one appeal. The user is practically evading a checkuser block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- CU isn't very useful here. Range is very active so all I could look at was the last two weeks. I can confirm they are who they say they are, but a sleeper check is
Inconclusive without knowing what I'm looking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- CU isn't very useful here. Range is very active so all I could look at was the last two weeks. I can confirm they are who they say they are, but a sleeper check is
- We really aren't sure what to do with these as a Community - I've seen longer cases basically just be ignored, while shorter cases are obviously rejected. I don't have a clearcut answer myself - we are currently squashed between "in no way preventative" and "sets a terrible example" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Right then, a clear-cut answer. He did wrong, but he long absented himself (we think), and if he did then in effect he pretty much served his time. He volunteered that he had done the dark deed. He's penitent. Blocking his current ID would not prevent anything that should be prevented. He seems a worthwhile editor; more than that, he seems to be a scrupulous, level-headed editor who understands Indian matters and who can read Hindi; and en:Wikipedia strikes me as terribly short of such people, much needed in the face of energetic and tiresome boosterism. So let his current ID be. No extra permissions for one year, but if he applies any time after that, view the application on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what? A COI editor who has evaded his block on multiple occasions (no-one seems to have mentioned Gopalagarwal11 here, but that was him too) and we're willing to give him a free pass on that because he can speak Hindi and might contribute to Indian topics? This guy is part of the problem, not part of the solution; I recommend we deal with him the way we always deal with such editors: indef block, standard offer. If this discussion wasn't already underway, I would be implementing that block right now. Yunshui 雲水 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've slept over the issue and agree with Yunshui. Eight failed unblock requests, two of which have been made in April 2020 with the intentional omission of the active sockpuppet. In July 2018, the user lied "I know the account ADPS. It is of a friend of mine."; in October 2019, they created their newest sockpuppet; in March 2020, they requested and received a trust-based autopatrol permission; in April 2020, the user requested an unblock twice at User talk:Kumargargavinash, both times including the reason "I didn't know that creating a new account by a blocked user is against the policy", as if they had learned from the mistake, not speaking a word about having knowingly repeated it since. Only when two appeals had been declined, the user decided to write Special:Diff/954673728 with their sockpuppet GargAvinash, yet required a very friendly inquiry by Rosguill before actually admitting which accounts this is about. A chronic case of dishonesty, this is. As the user is still blocked, and there is clearly no consensus for an unblock here, WP:CBAN applies. Someone uninvolved should close this after at least 24 hours, per "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'", implementing a site-wide ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I guess this is a bit late now, I wrote it before anyone had replied but because I also wrote a bunch of other stuff and I wasn't sure if I wanted to say it all, I didn't post it. But "If I were Kumargargavinash, I would not wait for a decision or to be blocked on the GargAvinah account. I'd stop using it straight away and wait (at least) 6 months and ask to be unblocked on the Kumargargavinash account." Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I also wrote: This sort of seems to be a case where maybe if Kumargargavinash had tried to get unblocked in January with full honesty, they would have a fair chance of getting unblocked. But even taking WP:CLEANSTART into consideration I don't think we can accept the socking while blocked, especially given the historic problems were both socking and paid editing concerns. No matter that they seem to have been confessed without prompting. Adding now that I've read the other responses, I think it's preventative since it's difficult to trust an editor in these circumstances. While no one has identified any clear problems with their recent editing, it's difficult to be confident they won't re-occur with an editor who feels it's okay to pick and choose what parts of policy they want to obey in a manner way beyond that allowed by IAR i.e. completely ignoring a block. And as others have pointed with the benefit of hindsight, we also see they were misleading us very recently with the April 2020 unblock. They said they understood they weren't allow to sock, but didn't mention they were still socking until confessing to Rosguill later. (I also feel that if we just allow this to pass, this means they and others are more likely to just do the same thing but appreciate some may feel that's not a valid block reason.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Yunshui, ToBeFree, and Nil Einne: we shouldn't even give the perception that we will tolerate block evasion. I also vote for GargAvinash to be community banned for sockpuppetry and block evasion; failing that, a indefinite ban of this newest account, and maybe the standard offer. If the editor stays away for at least six months. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The editor has demonstrated a long-term trend of dishonesty that continued up to this past month. A block is just as preventative here as the policies for WP:SOCK intend. If someone cannot be trusted by the community due to a history of dishonesty and sock puppetry, then they aren’t given editing privileges until they are believed to be trustworthy again as a preventive measure against future dishonest editing.In this case, their honesty started yesterday. Whether they weren’t dishonest from July 2018 – January 2020 is irrelevant if they were dishonest from January 2020 to yesterday. — MarkH21talk 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ignore it - I don't see any benefit to blocking him now. Redirect the old accounts to the new account for transparency, but, other than that, this violation of WP:SOCK isn't particularly significant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Allowing a user a free pass encourages them and others to evade blocks/bans. --MrClog (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regretfully, I think I'm now in the block camp. I'm swayed by comments made here, but the clincher is a comment made by GargAvinash. Following comments from ToBeFree that included rhetorical questions and a specific request that GargAvinash not respond to them [1], GargAvinash responded anyway and among other things, claimed that their block evasion with the current account was due to ignorance [2]. This really stretches the limits of my ability to assume good faith, given that the second account, ADPS, was explicitly blocked due to socking. While I can believe that someone may have simply walked away after getting blocked a second time without reading the relevant policies, coming back with a new account a year and a half later is at best negligence, and less charitably could be seen as contempt. I find it difficult to take someone seriously when in the same comment they say that they
didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock [while requesting an unblock for Kumargargavinash] because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry
and that they nonethelessnever intended to...mislead, deceive...or circumvent a block ban or sanction
. I'd be willing to entertain a standard offer further down the line, but at this time even that strikes me as being lenient. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)- Oof. The latest comments suggest that this needs a WP:CIR issue at best, with continued misunderstanding of WP:SOCK.
I didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry
— MarkH21talk 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Q: why did you continue to edit with the sockpuppet until yesterday?
A: I admit my stupidity but please watch my edit history. I haven't done anything that violates COI for which I was blocked. - (I assume that they started writing their answer before I added the note about the questions being rhetorical, so I wouldn't hold the answering itself against them. It's just the content of the answer that is concerning, as Rosguill and MarkH21 describe in detail. I recommend Kumargargavinash to have a look at this discussion and the whole situation in a few months again.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I still think the ban on advanced permissions is better, on balance, but I will agree that since my last comment here Garg has not been helping their own case. — Wug·a·po·des 23:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oof. The latest comments suggest that this needs a WP:CIR issue at best, with continued misunderstanding of WP:SOCK.
- The section had been archived after 6 days without messages. We need a formal closure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Don't take measures against this account - if this user hadn't admitted previous socking, the account wouldn't have been blocked. Admitting it was a good thing, you shouldn't punish for it. 46.117.17.7 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Amnesty' Made a fresh start-- leave the past in the past. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Regardless of how people feel about the substance of the main question, I feel the bare minimum is an Account restriction indefinitely banning GargAvinash to one account (logged at WP:EDRC). What they have done should not be taken lightly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've filed a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Administrative_discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I came here to close based on Rosguill's request - I think it's clear there's no consensus for unblocking (distinct from a consensus against) at this time and that's how I'd have closed it - but realized I wanted to make a statement beyond what I could as closer. We now have ample evidence that this user can edit productively for a sustained period of time. There are also ways to read good and bad intent into their actions here - I read good faith but can't claim with any sort of certainty that the bad faith readings are wrong. The history of half-truths and deception means I think there will always be reasonable concerns about this editor. And so at each unblock request it will be possible to find a reason why we just shouldn't do it now. And then it never happens. I think each one of those declines would be justified - as it would be here. But I don't think that is the just outcome in the longrun - in this instance. I'm not here saying this user should be unblocked now - I'm genuinely worried about an editor with a history of UPE attempting to gain NPR - but I also don't think never unblocking is just and right now the lack of consensus leads to them being blocked. So I would like to see that presumption flipped and would suggest in 3 or 6 months that if this user has not socked (again) that they be unblocked. I would also support the 1 year prevention of any PERMs beyond confirmed/extended confirmed from the time they're unblocked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is a good take. bibliomaniac15 22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree as well. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, what I support is after X time a SO appeal can be made. If there is no consensus about a SO appeal, I am proposing that it would default to accept rather than default to decline. If there is consensus at that time against the SO it would be declined and if there was consensus for it would be accepted. But my proposal is in the case of no consensus that it would default to accepted + 1 year of permission restrictions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is a good take. bibliomaniac15 22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like for an uninvolved admin or two to keep an eye on this article. There are concerted efforts to include part of the victim's supposed run-ins with the law, as if these things are somehow relevant to him getting shot by these two men. Allegedly shot, of course. I find, and I am not the only one, that such inclusions are distasteful, and I'm putting it mildly. They are BLP violations, because recent deaths fall under the BLP and this information is undue and does not pertain. This is not a biography of a person, it's an account of how an unarmed man was shot by two other men. Allegedly, of course. See also Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Arbery_priors. We can NOT have this article with some tendentious material, which IMO borders on racism. We've seen this before, in the article on Trayvon Martin most particularly, and we should not let this happen again. I have no easy solution here, but I think that some active and proactive administrative oversight might help. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Late at night and I have to sign off. But, these two edits claim that Arbery commited felonies with no source. [3] [4]. Appreciate it if someone would take a look. Even if true, likely a BLP vio. I only spent ten minutes, but couldn’t find a source for a felony conviction. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, claims like this that can't be easily confirmed from RSes in 5-10 minutes need to be removed. The earlier probation about the gun, yes, but the stealing from Walmart I can't find anything about. Will deal with that. --Masem (t) 01:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem:"Arbery [some things] "[5] I cited that source properly when making an edit, which was summarily undone with no discussion – 90 minutes before you censored my post on the Talk page. Can you please put what I wrote back and remove your "final warning", or should I? Tambourine60 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Tambourine60, I want you to not post that kind of material anywhere on Wikipedia, OK? Doesn't matter whether it's verified or not--there is no good reason to post that here or anywhere. The material is not relevant to ANYTHING we're doing here, and it's certainly not relevant to the shooting. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a novice at this, and would also love help understanding the relevance in the "Background" section of things like: the "troubled history" of a police chief who "was indicted on charges arising from an alleged cover-up of a sexual relationship that an officer had with an informant" (AFTER Arbery's death, no less), or "Attorney Jackie Johnson who was accused of a coverup…" These are living people whose actions are being included to prejudice (fairly, perhaps) their behavior in the instant case. But how is it possible that it's relevant to include unsubstantiated and unproven accusations against living people as "background" while not including the fact that, say, Arbery was previously convicted by a court of law of theft and other crimes? [6][7] Tambourine60 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- All that falls under the BLP as well, but for people who are allegedly involved in an alleged shooting some kinds of prior information are in fact relevant. And if you cannot stop blaming the victim, you will be not partially, but wholly blocked, since it seems you are not here to improve the project but rather to further an agenda. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem:"Arbery [some things] "[5] I cited that source properly when making an edit, which was summarily undone with no discussion – 90 minutes before you censored my post on the Talk page. Can you please put what I wrote back and remove your "final warning", or should I? Tambourine60 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- The article protection will end today. It needs to be extended. There is enough evidences in the history page and the talk page of POV-pushing IPs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree and have extended. DrKay (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Drmies and Masem: I have partially blocked two editors from the article today - the above-mentioned User:Tambourine60, who added another false claim on the talkpage about Arbery's priors, and User:Chrisvacc, for this attack on other editors and threat to "take this to the press". There do seem to be a number of low-edit SPA accounts hanging around this article at the moment, all with similar aims as regards inserting material into the article; more admin eyes on the talk page especially would be welcome. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a threat – I'd call it more of a 'heads up' – Chrisvacc (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Stating that you will go to the press complaining about specific editors in beyond chilling. O3000 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, I just put on my magic glasses to see this edit. Thank you for removing that, and all I can say is that Tambourine60 better be thankful to you that a partial block is all they got. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Noting support for both blocks; Tambourine60's as the commented noted above is clearly a NOTHERE situation, and the one from Chrisvacc as being close enough to a legal threat. (I haven't touched/looked at that page for several days at all, and it falls into my area of where I have several misgivings of how we handle NOTNEWS on topics like this that unfortunately draw editors that are going to spark discussion that may lead to these types of blocks; there's better ways we can edit the mainspace and discuss behind the scenes but neither here nor there of the current proper admin actions). --Masem (t) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, as a reasonably impartial admin (can't be too polite
); you're attention would be useful. Even with two article bans; those two can still edit the TP and others are filling their place. One linked to a site I've not heard of (complex.com) with an article mentioning the records of his brother and cousin (the sins of the brother and cousin?). They are discussing inclusion of his "criminal record" without any evidence as to what it might be. Admin only protection won't help as the BLP vios are mostly on the TP. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: It's deeply ironic that someone with "Objective" in their username is writing this with a straight face. The "evidence" of Arbery's criminal record has been widely reported. But one can't "discuss inclusion" of it, as you suggest, because one gets warned, redacted, and blocked. It's pure Orwell — one can't have a good-faith discussion on the Talk page of whether facts are WP:DUE without acknowledging what the facts are. But as soon as one quotes and cites a mainstream source to identify the facts, they're redacted and blocked for… being "WP:UNDUE". Then you come along and say "these idiots are discussing inclusion of "the facts" without any evidence as to what those might be." Do you see the irony? Because that is quite literally what has happened here. Maybe someone with some actual intellectual and moral integrity and independence will step in, but from what I'm seeing, the people with actual power here are all self-congratulatory sheep applauding each other for fighting "Stormfront", oblivious to the fact that they're actually blocking a Jewish lady whose family survived and escaped totalitarianism and happens to have the courage to think and speak freely. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked them from both the article and the TP. As will any other account be that repeatedly commits any other BLP vios. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Didn't mean to slight your efforts. Just looking for more eyes. BTW, a problem I've seen with partial blocks as I've seen examples elsewhere where those banned hadn't realized it applies to article TPs. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Incidentally, FYI, one of those you blocked just emailed the other you blocked.[8] Haven't seen that before. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite I believe I am entitled to a specific explanation from you as to how I violated WP:BLP (or any other reason you blocked me). I have read WP:BLP thoroughly and am certain I haven't violated WP:BLPCRIME; I've been entirely "dispassionate" and never suggested the Article should be anything but WP:NPOV; and I have stuck entirely to writing cited, well-sourced facts on the Talk page and this Administrator Messageboard as part of a discussion on what facts are relevant. I have not written a single unsourced fact nor has anyone cited a single source that factually contradicts anything I've written. Indeed, all I did was respond to a warning from Masem about a theft from Walmart with a neutral quote from The Daily Beast which stated verbatim what I had been warned for writing… and the quote itself was censored, along with a lecture from Drmies about how he personally didn't want me posting things he didn't like, whether or not they were verified, because they "blamed the victim" and were part of an "agenda". That's completely outrageous; I have no agenda and believe that it's preferable to include Arbery's prior criminal convictions because they are relevant, have been widely reported in reliable sources, and in fact formed the basis of a prior relationship between the victim and one of the men accused of his murder. As has been widely reported, including in both the instant Article and on its Talk page, on April 7th, DA Barnhill wrote a recusal letter to the State AG in which he stated that "his son, a prosecutor in the Brunswick DA’s office, and McMichael, then an investigator in that same office, 'both helped with the previous prosecution of (Ahmaud) Arbery'" and that his son "'handled a previous felony probation revocation and pleading Ahmaud Arbery to a felony'".[1] I count two felony convictions of Arbery in that statement. I have half-a-dozen other sources, but have a feeling that any more direct quotes from mainstream sources might get me banned forever. Again, this isn't even language or specific information I ever suggested go into the Article—it's factual, sourced information I mentioned on the Talk page in the context of joining an active, ongoing debate and attempt to reach consensus on whether criminal history was WP:DUE. One hopes you can see the absurdity of being warned for allegedly violating WP:DUE in a Talk page discussion of what was and wasn't WP:DUE. Now I've been censored for citing a source on this Administrator Messageboard — literally doing nothing but pasting a quote from an article along with its citation — for the sole purpose of defending myself from being accused of having "no source". I hope it's obvious why it's positively Orwellian to block people for violating WP:DUE by engaging in an ongoing, good-faith discussion of whether something is WP:DUE. Again, please explain specifically why I was blocked. Sincerely, Tambourine60 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite I would also note that you have blocked two editors who would obviously be participating in the RfC on Arbery's priors, just before they had a chance to do so. You and others have also redacted my citations of mainstream-sourced facts about Arbery's priors from the Talk page and this page. This has a very bad smell to it. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020
- Tambourine60 Yes, they were redacted because they were BLP violations, and the last one I redacted wasn't sourced at all - which was unsuprising because it was false. If simply carry on violating BLP after you've been final warned by another administrator, then you should be unsurprised to be blocked, and as another administrator said above, if you don't understand this I probably should have blocked you completely, not just from a single page. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Tambourine60, you will not get very far with this claim that I "just don't like" your material. I could just as easily say that "you don't like mine". You can claim you are being "censored" but the only thing that's happening here is that you were asked, and are now implored, to adhere to our guidelines and policies. Think of it as a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. No one hates your feet, but you shouldn't walk in here without shoes on. And if you still don't see how impugning the character of a murder victim is problematic, then yeah, you probably shouldn't be here at all.
Anyway, maybe some other admin can come along and close this--if Tambourine60 puts his foot in his mouth even further he might get himself blocked for it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies You told me that you, personally, "don't want me" to write "anything like that… even if it's verified" — even though what I had written was nothing but a direct quote from a Daily Beast article, which I was only quoting because it stated facts I had been warned were not in mainstream sources. How else could I possibly respond? And I had originally stated that fact as part of a Talk page discussion on whether those facts were relevant – how can one discuss the relevance of facts on a Talk page if one can't identify those facts? Despite my asking a dozen times, no one has been able to explain to me what specific policy or guideline I've violated – I just keep getting more broad threats of being "entirely blocked" for daring to ask the question. Tambourine60 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You could respond by saying something like, "oh, sorry, guess I was wrong". You still fail to grasp that this is a website whose policies and guidelines are being enforced by administrators, and for better or for worse I'm one of them. No, you're not being blocked for something heroic like "daring to ask the question"--you stand a good chance of being blocked per NOTHERE, or maybe ongoing BLP violations.
For clarity's sake: BLAMING THE VICTIM by continuing to harp on negative aspects of a person's life that have NOTHING to do with the reason their life and death are now part of an encyclopedic article is not allowed. Clear? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You could respond by saying something like, "oh, sorry, guess I was wrong". You still fail to grasp that this is a website whose policies and guidelines are being enforced by administrators, and for better or for worse I'm one of them. No, you're not being blocked for something heroic like "daring to ask the question"--you stand a good chance of being blocked per NOTHERE, or maybe ongoing BLP violations.
- Drmies You told me that you, personally, "don't want me" to write "anything like that… even if it's verified" — even though what I had written was nothing but a direct quote from a Daily Beast article, which I was only quoting because it stated facts I had been warned were not in mainstream sources. How else could I possibly respond? And I had originally stated that fact as part of a Talk page discussion on whether those facts were relevant – how can one discuss the relevance of facts on a Talk page if one can't identify those facts? Despite my asking a dozen times, no one has been able to explain to me what specific policy or guideline I've violated – I just keep getting more broad threats of being "entirely blocked" for daring to ask the question. Tambourine60 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Tambourine60, you will not get very far with this claim that I "just don't like" your material. I could just as easily say that "you don't like mine". You can claim you are being "censored" but the only thing that's happening here is that you were asked, and are now implored, to adhere to our guidelines and policies. Think of it as a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. No one hates your feet, but you shouldn't walk in here without shoes on. And if you still don't see how impugning the character of a murder victim is problematic, then yeah, you probably shouldn't be here at all.
- Tambourine60 Yes, they were redacted because they were BLP violations, and the last one I redacted wasn't sourced at all - which was unsuprising because it was false. If simply carry on violating BLP after you've been final warned by another administrator, then you should be unsurprised to be blocked, and as another administrator said above, if you don't understand this I probably should have blocked you completely, not just from a single page. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, as a reasonably impartial admin (can't be too polite
- Noting support for both blocks; Tambourine60's as the commented noted above is clearly a NOTHERE situation, and the one from Chrisvacc as being close enough to a legal threat. (I haven't touched/looked at that page for several days at all, and it falls into my area of where I have several misgivings of how we handle NOTNEWS on topics like this that unfortunately draw editors that are going to spark discussion that may lead to these types of blocks; there's better ways we can edit the mainspace and discuss behind the scenes but neither here nor there of the current proper admin actions). --Masem (t) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Boone, Christian. "EXCLUSIVE: Father of Brunswick shooter previously investigated victim". ajc. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
- Black Kite I've respectfully asked for a specific explanation for your block, so I can better understand Wikipedia editing. You're saying if I don't understand "BLP violations" then you "probably should have blocked [me] completely". This is my understanding:
You're saying what I wrote "wasn't sourced at all" — now I've provided the source (which, as I've pointed out, I've cited before and is found in articles already used as sources in the Article). Neither you nor anyone else has provided ANY information contradicting what I wrote, let alone , as you claim, that it is "false" — despite my asking repeatedly for it. Again, can you please either provide evidence that what I wrote was false, and explain what specific BLP policy I violated? Appreciatively, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them… Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers."
- Black Kite I've respectfully asked for a specific explanation for your block, so I can better understand Wikipedia editing. You're saying if I don't understand "BLP violations" then you "probably should have blocked [me] completely". This is my understanding:
331dot Will you please help me? You have refused to unblock me because I "have to demonstrate a better understanding of WP:BLP". I have read and reread WP:BLP and have asked for specific clarification numerous times. I am entitled to that:
"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them… Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers."
To say that I am "discouraged" is a gross understatement. I got a first and "final warning" for citing well-sourced information (indeed, the information is in the Article). When I quoted from a mainstream source in my defense, it was redacted. Then I was banned for asserting as fact something from a source I have already cited several times. I have repeatedly been told it's "false" without the slightest evidence being provided. All I want is to understand specifically why I was blocked. The only reason given is "BLP violations" which is unspecific and jargony, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. Can you please specifically explain how I would "demonstrate better understanding of WP:BLP" so that I may be unblocked? Thanks, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You said that Arbery had been convicted (and that is the important word) of two felonies. You provided no source for this. Since then, on your talk page you mentioned Barnhill's comments - neither of those used the word "convicted" and they were Barnhill's words anyway and so should have been attributed at the very least. Even if Barnhill's claim that they "had a felony record" is true, that is not "two convictions" - it may be, it may not be. Do you understand the problem now? Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Black KiteI really appreciate your explanation and now finally understand that I was blocked specifically for failing to cite or source information I presented as factual. Is the "BLP violation" that I disseminated "contentious material about a living person that… is unsourced or poorly sourced"? If so, the BLP element now makes sense to me. I thought I had been blocked for writing something WP:UNDUE, which made zero sense to me as it was in the context of a Talk page solicitation about what was/wasn't WP:DUE. I'm glad to have that clarified. As you point out, certainly no one has provided any source which contradicts in any way what I wrote, so it's not that I posted demonstratively "false" information, as many have claimed, but as you say, that "it may be, it may not be" true. I completely understand that in your view I erred by assuming that my having cited/sourced the information in the same context on the same Talk page more than once before, I didn't need to re-attribute and re-cite the source. I can certainly see now how, had I provided the attribution/source along with that statement, it would have been clearer why I had presented the information. Not doing so was entirely my error and I will do my utmost to always cite and attribute each piece of information, regardless of whether I've done so before – I can clearly see how that will help avoid future conflict — and I wholeheartedly apologize for not doing so in the instant example. Very truly, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite:@331dot: Is there something further I need to do vis a vis my unblock request? As soon as I was given a specific explanation for why I was blocked, I grasped the issue, apologized for the error, which was made while editing in good faith, and have resolved not to repeat the mistake. Again, I'm new to this, and so I'm reaching out to you because you blocked me and declined to unblock me, respectively, and I'm not sure what else to do. Sincerely, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Tambourine60, I believe you understand what you did, and I think you are on your way to being unblocked. I am not an administrator, but I can say that instant unblock requests are rarely granted. Now, I don't think you need to wait a great amount of time, but maybe edit some other articles and give it the weekend? Something like that? I think you'd make a much more compelling case if you can just let things cool down for a couple of days. But, as I say, I am no expert either. Cheers, and best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite:@331dot: Is there something further I need to do vis a vis my unblock request? As soon as I was given a specific explanation for why I was blocked, I grasped the issue, apologized for the error, which was made while editing in good faith, and have resolved not to repeat the mistake. Again, I'm new to this, and so I'm reaching out to you because you blocked me and declined to unblock me, respectively, and I'm not sure what else to do. Sincerely, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisvacc, filed by me. starship.paint (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Different issue
I am not certain if this is going to get me into trouble, but I would like to lodge a small complaint against User:Drmies for leaving a summary on my Talk page, saying that I had been "Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons", in relation to an edit I made on the Arbery article (I had not known at the time that a dispute was being waged on that article's Talk page). Regardless, what I added was not about a living person, and I cited three different references (NY Post, Graham Media, and CNN). So, Drmies' chastisement of me was false on not one, but two counts. Drmies then appears to have gone through edits of mine from months ago, nominating for deletion one article about a South African law firm that I had tried to help Wikipedia by adding references to, and deleting a paragraph from another article about a law firm that is active in the Innocence Project (an action I would not really object to, were it not for the creepy factor that the deletion seemed personally motivated by the admin's "hunt" against me). Is there any function or protocol on Wikipedia where admins are counseled to maybe not be so aggressive when they act alone in meting out their interpretation of the wiki-law? (A bit ironic, is it not, considering what the McMichaels did?) - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Buckaboob Bonsai, BLP relates to people who are "recently" deceased as well, and defines "recently" broadly. BLP still applies to Arbrey based on the recent nature of his death and its coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, What about the policy here? It prohibits "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." In the course of just 11 minutes, the above-mentioned admin warned me about adding "unreferenced" references that link to NY Post, Graham Media television, and CNN; then killed off references that I added to an entirely unrelated article on February 26th, then nominated for deletion an entirely different article that I added some references to. I would love to hear an explanation for how that is not "hounding". - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this strikes me as weak tea. Your evidence of hounding is a templating, which can certainly be annoying, but happens. Then we have an AfD nomination and an edit with which you don't seem to particularly disagree. Now if this were a part of a larger course of conduct, you might well have something, and it may get there yet. But as it stands, in my non-expert, non-administrator opinion, this doesn't even come close to Wikihounding. Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Taken with all due respect, I appreciate you weighing in, and I can understand your points. Maybe some others will chime in, too. Now, how would you have felt if I had rather said, "I don't give a flying fuck about weak tea"? Before you answer, see this reference from just minutes ago. It seems to me there is a good time and a place to treat other human beings with respect (and that's just about always and everywhere), and a very rare time and place when the heat actually needs to be turned up. Since January, I have been enjoying working on Wikipedia, and then this one admin causes me to question whether I'd every want to smile again when clicking the Edit button. It's human nature. Nastiness begets a desire to retaliate. Maybe I made a mistake on the Arbery article. Maybe it was a terrible mistake. But nothing prior to that was any indication that I wasn't here to collaborate, which Drmies is now accusing me of, on top of the insults he previously leveled. A flying fuck, indeed. How professional. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- You may do as you like with my weak tea! I try (and occasionally succeed) to be both collegial and civil, but there will always be sharp elbows on Wikipedia. Here's hoping you have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Taken with all due respect, I appreciate you weighing in, and I can understand your points. Maybe some others will chime in, too. Now, how would you have felt if I had rather said, "I don't give a flying fuck about weak tea"? Before you answer, see this reference from just minutes ago. It seems to me there is a good time and a place to treat other human beings with respect (and that's just about always and everywhere), and a very rare time and place when the heat actually needs to be turned up. Since January, I have been enjoying working on Wikipedia, and then this one admin causes me to question whether I'd every want to smile again when clicking the Edit button. It's human nature. Nastiness begets a desire to retaliate. Maybe I made a mistake on the Arbery article. Maybe it was a terrible mistake. But nothing prior to that was any indication that I wasn't here to collaborate, which Drmies is now accusing me of, on top of the insults he previously leveled. A flying fuck, indeed. How professional. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this strikes me as weak tea. Your evidence of hounding is a templating, which can certainly be annoying, but happens. Then we have an AfD nomination and an edit with which you don't seem to particularly disagree. Now if this were a part of a larger course of conduct, you might well have something, and it may get there yet. But as it stands, in my non-expert, non-administrator opinion, this doesn't even come close to Wikihounding. Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, What about the policy here? It prohibits "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." In the course of just 11 minutes, the above-mentioned admin warned me about adding "unreferenced" references that link to NY Post, Graham Media television, and CNN; then killed off references that I added to an entirely unrelated article on February 26th, then nominated for deletion an entirely different article that I added some references to. I would love to hear an explanation for how that is not "hounding". - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Suffice to say, this does not rise to the level of hounding. It's quite common, when an editor finds a problem edit, to check the contributions of the editor. If the subsequent changes were baseless (ie. just reverting everything you'd contributed for the last several days), you might have an argument for targeted editing. That does not appear to be the case here: Drmies made a valid BLP edit, and then found one edit in your contributions they thought was inappropriate & one article they felt qualified for deletion discussion. These actions do not IMO rise to harassment or hounding.
- Further, tacking this complaint onto another completely unrelated thread, just because Drmies was involved in that thread, is not a good look.
- Overall, I'd say this isn't going to go anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am carrying over the unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00 from UTRS
MagicJulius00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User was CBANned for persistent socking under WP:3STRIKES. A recent check user check did not reveal any recent socking.
Despite of being blocked and banned in English Wikipedia, or before being blocked, I created 4 sockpuppet accounts, User:UnitedPhilippines02, User:GoodLife123, User:WowMagic18 and User:MagicJulius. I do not know why these three accounts; User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio and User:Mycadaniellabacar were included in Category:Confirmed Wikipedia Sockpuppets of MagicJulius00. Since I was blocked in 2018 and banned in 2019, I focused on editing and creating articles and pages in Wikidata, Tagalog Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia projects. The reason why I created many accounts is because I want to edit more in Wikipedia. It breaks me when an administrator will reply to my appeal in UTRS and will decline it. They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned. If this appeal will be denied, then I will not appeal again.
There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.
Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unblocking. There's not enough here that demonstrates the user knows what they did was wrong. Yes, they created accounts because they wanted to edit here, but that is inappropriate. Yes, they are sad when they are caught by administrators evading their block, but that's their fault. They've repeatedly asked for an unblock while simultaneously evading their block. See for example, the unblock request from 2019-07-03. Note that there's no evidence of block evasion this time around, so my opposition is based on prior behaviour and no demonstration of understanding. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unblocking - Although I believe in second chances, there's not enough in this appeal that they are ready for it just yet. In unblock requests, I look for indication that the user understands what they did wrong that got themselves blocked and a plan for how they want to contribute once they are unblocked. I recommend that this user takes contributing to this project seriously and that Wikipedia is not a game. They should also walk away from Wikipedia for a significant period of time (maybe 6 months or 1 year) and take this time to think about what they did wrong and figure out how they can convince us that they are worthy of getting unblocked. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unblocking - An extensive history of socking, and the unblock request does not show any understanding of why what they did was wrong. Wanting to edit Wikipedia is not enough: all Wikipedia editors want to edit Wikipedia, but when one has a history of abuse of editing privileges, some presentation of reform must be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unblocking: Per above, I also see a history of socking and a lack of understanding. That's enough for me to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unblocking: User lacks understanding of why they were blocked in the first place, nor why sockpuppeteering is wrong. Also, it sounds like they are trying to argue that four accounts listed as sockpuppets are not, it makes me think that they are trying to sow confusion or have accounts that are likely sockpuppets as determined by CheckUsers unblocked. Either way, this is immature. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 18:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Question - I'm a bit confused at the sentence "They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned." Did the user sock less than 6 months ago, but figure they didn't want to wait the 6 month period before appealing? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that's what they mean. Seems like a bit of an English language mistranslation here, but I suspect the user was frustrated that each of the reviewing administrators provided a similar response (basically "not good enough") and told them to wait 6 months per WP:SO. Eventually, the reviewing admins got sick of the repeated appeals and told him to stop. I think he interpreted that as a requirement that he must not appeal the block for 6 months. AlexEng(TALK) 23:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Per your comments below, I also support unblocking. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that's what they mean. Seems like a bit of an English language mistranslation here, but I suspect the user was frustrated that each of the reviewing administrators provided a similar response (basically "not good enough") and told them to wait 6 months per WP:SO. Eventually, the reviewing admins got sick of the repeated appeals and told him to stop. I think he interpreted that as a requirement that he must not appeal the block for 6 months. AlexEng(TALK) 23:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking – though what we're really talking about here is removing the CBAN imposed by 3STRIKES. Honestly, I sympathize with this user's predicament. They made a mistake, and they were blocked. All of the issues on their admittedly long rap sheet stem from a desire to edit despite the block. Clearly, English is not their first language, but that doesn't mean they can't make effective contributions to the project. I'm looking at their most recent sock from July of last year GoodLife123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I don't see any serious issues with the contributions. The edits they made on that sock are live on the pages to this day. For this user, I subscribe to the WP:ROPE school of thought. Maybe we unban them, and suddenly all of the ban evasion issues are a moot point and they become a useful contributor? Maybe not, and then we just ban them again. They've been good for almost a year. If they're ever going to get another chance, now is the time. AlexEng(TALK) 23:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking per AlexEng. "WP:ROPE school of thought." starship.paint (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Unblocking per AlexEng. Watch the users contribs and block again if there is problematic behaviour. WP:ROPE! --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unblocking I believe in second changes but, they seem to not understand what they did was wrong per all the unblock requests on their talk page. Also per all of the opposers. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Welp, the !votes so far are 4-6, and this has been open for ages. Does that mean the unban request is unsuccessful? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do believe that's what it indicates. The user should be informed they could make another unban request where they demonstrate an understanding of what lead to the block in the first place and address the other concerns raised here. That is, this is not the end of the line for them. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fortunately, more people are supporting now! Foxnpichu (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do believe that's what it indicates. The user should be informed they could make another unban request where they demonstrate an understanding of what lead to the block in the first place and address the other concerns raised here. That is, this is not the end of the line for them. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking - Although they created multiple accounts, I'm not seeing that they used those accounts in an abusive way. For example, User:MagicJulius might be a sock of User:MagicJulius00, but honestly, that's not an attempt to avoid scrutiny. User:WowMagic18 posted a bunch of retired templates on other accounts' user pages [9] - not exactly trying to get away with anything there, either. User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio, and User:Mycadaniellabacar have made zero edits. User:UnitedPhilippines02 made one edit, creating a user page. User:GoodLife123 made 6 edits, none of which seem malicious (or incorrect). I'm not seeing any damage caused by this user. Seems more misguided than malicious, and reading the user talk page, I think their previous requests should have been granted, and more explanation given. Simply repeating "you have not shown that you understand what you did wrong" is ... it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops. I support a second chance because this user has not been given one yet. (I also see that some of the people opposing unblocking have, themselves, gotten into trouble for socking, and were given a second chance. Kinda poor form to deny that to other editors, IMO.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- To add: I think one thing we forget is that the people who want to sock, can just sock. It's so trivially easy to sock without being detected, and I mean so fucking easy, that whenever someone who is blocked for socking asks to be unblocked and commits to using one account, we really should lean heavily towards doing that. It's way, way better for a sockmaster to be open and to use one account "publicly", because the alternative is that they use other accounts we don't know about and can't track. I have a hard time believing that anyone who asks to be unblocked from socking has malicious intent; people with malicious intent will just keep socking. And I think setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking as per Levivich, second chances shouldn't be too hard to get, also they have made productive edits in other projects since their block, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking I just looked through Julius' global contributions and they've been contributing constructively to tlwiki and wikidata as they state in the unblock request. I think it's really quite obvious that they want to be unblocked so that they can help build this encyclopedia too. It boggles my mind that this is so controversial, and I agree with Levivich, especially, when they say
it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops...people with malicious intent will just keep socking...setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part
. Plus we have CU evidence that the editor hasn't socked recently so unblock seems the best choice for the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des 04:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) - Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng. I read a lot of the unblock requests and it seems that a few of the admins just responded as if they were robots (and also not dealing with someone with English fluency) which didn't help the matter. Perhaps in another place there should be a discussion about unblock requests and how groveling shouldn't be the requirement to get unblocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng - Their unblock requests are pretty atrocious however as noted above English isn't their first language and given they've not actually harmed the project I see no reason to decline this, I'm sure this editor won't mess up the only final chance here, Also supporting per ROPE. –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblocking as I see useful global contributions and no recent socking. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyright violation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there, I just wanted to bring attention to this edit in which I removed copyrighted content, and I noticed that it was kind of standard for admins to make the previous edit unavailable for viewing. I already warned the editor here, by the way, so I don't think there should be any more warnings addressed to the editor about this situation. lullabying (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Done DrKay (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Lullabying, for future reference what you are referring to is called Revision deletion; more information about requesting {{revdel}} is available there, and there is a script that can assist in such requests. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Needs closing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Singh. All the best! serial # 08:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requests for permissions/Rollback - High backlog
Done by Anarchyte Thank you and all the best, -- puddleglum2.0 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback has a high backlog (14 unreviewed requests with the earliest dated May 3). Thanks! Juliette Han (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism on pages
Hi,
Recently found disruptive editing as editing contents without proper source happened in some pages.Tried rollback but the user Aneesh sreemangalam (talk · contribs) keeps changing contents again and again.Suspecting sock puppetry edits.Please look into his edit history and find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlander07 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've looked at a random sampling of edits from that editor. I don't see anything that meets the definition of vandalism. Can you please explain the problem; also please do not EVER use the word vandalism unless it is clear that the person in question is editing in bad faith, or trying to harm or damage Wikipedia with intent. Which is not to say there are not other behavior issues such as sockpuppetry or edit warring, but I don't see any actual vandalism from that account. If there is a problem other than vandalism, can you please provide some details so we can help solve the problem? Also, you are required to notify users when you mention them here. Can you please do so, post haste? Thank you. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Apology from my part for using the word 'vandal' so loosely. Just informed user Aneesh sreemangalam (talk · contribs) to stop disruptive edit on pages by sending warn message on his talk page. He blatantly removing contents which are cited and replacing with some other. This is what happened. Outlander07 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Drmies abusing administrative privileges.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Drmies suggested[10] that I come here after he taunted and insulted me, and then locked the page down so that I couldn't respond.
This is part of a part of a pattern of abuse, starting when he threatened to block me[11] for a completely legitimate edit, while falsely accusing me of vandalism and trolling.
It turns out that he had mistaken[12] me for some other editor who also happened to have an IP instead of an account, which is why he thought I was edit-warring. In fact, I made a single change[13] and then immediately[14] opened a discussion about it. While not everyone is going to agree with the merit of the change, it was based on three reliable sources that directly supported it, so it would be unreasonable to call it vandalism.
On that talk page, Drmies accused me of trolling and of being a sock puppet[15][16]. Ironically, he sided with User:Nigel Abe, an actual sock puppet troll who was subsequently blocked.
So, the short version is that Drmies abused his power to WP:BITE me by being extremely hostile, insulting, and threatening at every turn. He was mistaken about my identity because he couldn't tell two completely different IP's apart, and instead of acknowledging his error and backing down, he doubled down with more threats.
In my opinion, this is not acceptable behavior for someone who represents this project. I would like him censured for this and demand a public apology. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I just attempted to serve notice on his talk page, as the instructions require, but he's locked it down so that I can't! This is just more of the same indifference to the rules he's supposed to be enforcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're taking things out of order. He started off with the assumption of good faith but then noticed you sounded like the other IP he just blocked. Whether you were lying or mistaken, such a screw up gives little reason to bother with the rest of your report. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not great behavior all around, but nothing actionable here. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, I'm looking, but I can't see any edits of the IP that are troublesome. I do see several edits of Drmies that aren't very nice. Also, accusing an editor of being a sock is not within policy. If you suspect someone is a sock, either do an CU open an SPI, etc. Also, the tone of the edits is not the way an admin should act. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- The IP's edits to the referenced user talk page seem to me to have a sharply negative tone - beginning with "don't darken my talk page again or I'll report you for stalking". BD2412 T 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, he's talking to a sock. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- As it turns out, but he clearly didn't know that at the time. BD2412 T 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concern about context, but I did know that he came to my talk page and falsely accused me of having "been reverted multiple times and have not yet come to the talk page". I think that explains my unhappy reaction.
- Now how do you explain the abusive behavior by Drmies, which is actually what's under discussion here? No amount of blaming me can make Drmies' behavior more acceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- With respect to the limited protection of the user talk page, I can see no legitimate reason for an IP to be editing the talk page of an indef-blocked sock. If there is a dispute with respect to an article, the discussion should take place on the talk page of that article, and not spread to numerous other pages. BD2412 T 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- As it turns out, but he clearly didn't know that at the time. BD2412 T 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, he's talking to a sock. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- The IP's edits to the referenced user talk page seem to me to have a sharply negative tone - beginning with "don't darken my talk page again or I'll report you for stalking". BD2412 T 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, I'm looking, but I can't see any edits of the IP that are troublesome. I do see several edits of Drmies that aren't very nice. Also, accusing an editor of being a sock is not within policy. If you suspect someone is a sock, either do an CU open an SPI, etc. Also, the tone of the edits is not the way an admin should act. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ian.thomson, That doesn't sound like a great AGF to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not great behavior all around, but nothing actionable here. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- He didn't even protect his talk page himself. Regardless, I served him a notice of this discussion. Do note that if you know enough about Wikipedia to tell someone not to bite you, you aren't a newcomer. With regards to the accusation of sock puppetry, I would say that the location of both IPs here - for privacy purposes I won't list the locations - are sort of similar, though still a reasonable distance. You also became active after about a month of near radio-silence - just one edit - two days after the other IP (72.86.138.120) was blocked. I can see where Drmies suspicion was coming from. MrClog (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was a little surprised to see his talk page protected for over two years.[17] Isn't that against Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages? PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, if you ever run for admin and you get those magic glasses, you'll see why. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, still goes against the blocking policy though. I don't see any exception there for admin pages being allowed to have indef protection. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- God help us all if I ever think that is a good idea. I have seen the crap your kind has to put up with. PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think I'd make a better admin, and I know I'm an asshole. HalfShadow 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, if you ever run for admin and you get those magic glasses, you'll see why. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was a little surprised to see his talk page protected for over two years.[17] Isn't that against Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages? PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, his first two comments on the Brothers of Italy talk page preceded the threat on my talk page by a few minutes, but they were already hostile. He hinted at equating me with a blocked troll ("I don't think you're the same person as the IP I just blocked, but I could be wrong.") and then falsely accused me outright ("drop it: it's trolling. Funny--you write just like that other IP editor. Y'all related?") Seven minutes later, he came to my talk page to threaten me.
As Sir Joseph pointed out, none of this looked like assuming good faith. For that matter, neither is insisting that I was "lying or mistaken" and therefore we should ignore what Drmies did.
In response to BD2412, I suggest that my behavior cannot rise to the credible threat of blocking because I don't have that ability. With more power comes more responsibility, so we should hold Drmies to a higher standard. In addition, my "sharply negative tone" was in direct response to his abusive behavior addressed at a now-blocked troll, yet never rose to the level of abuse, so you're blaming the victim for being angry about being victimized. He falsely accused me, insulted me, and threatened me. How is that ok? Why is my anger the problem here and not his behavior?
MrClog, we've seen that Drmies completely failed to notice an actual sock puppet right in front of him but loudly accused me of the same without any evidence. If he really thought I was a sock puppet, I'm sure he knows procedures to verify this. (BTW, please feel free to apply whatever procedures you want; I'm not anyone but myself.) So his accusations served only to intimidate. That's not acceptable and it's entirely actionable.
Also, MrClog, Drmies did protect the talk page of that sock puppet[18], as I said. I don't know if he's the one who protected his own, but that's also unacceptable. How can someone be an administrator while making it impossible for people to contact him on his own talk page? What is going on here?! 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
One more correction: the comment about not darkening my doorstep was not made to Drmies. It was on the talk page of the sock puppet that Drmies backed and was not addressed at Drmies. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I did really think the IP was a sock puppet, and I do know turned out not to be the case. And yet I think anyone will see the resemblances between the sockhopping edit warrior and this IP, who picked the matter up so quickly and in the same passive-aggressive tone and with the exact same argument. That I "failed to notice" this other sock--meh, I'm not familiar with the master. There's hundreds of socks editing these pages every day, and some of them are sometimes right, as this one was in this case. The meat of the argument is very simple anyway: the IP sock and the IP editor want a general statement in the article that proclaims something as fact, whereas the provided source clearly marks the supposed fact as one person's opinion--maybe a very worthy opinion--and thus it should be properly ascribed in the proper place in the article--not dropped as a fact in the infobox, which is the essence of POV pushing. And Sir Joseph, if someone is POV pushing, it's silly to continue to apply AGF. Not a death pact.If anyone wants to unprotect Nigel Abe's talk page, that's fine with me, but the IP will turn it into a soapbox to taunt me and to discuss things with a sock editor who has no interest in responding and is probably back with a new account already. It's all very useless. And here we are, wasting more time with an editor whose edits may have displayed an intent to improve the project, but by now it's just trolling. Someone should tell them to stop pinging me; I'm feeling harassed, and that's harassment by ping. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, was it acceptable for you to accuse me of vandalism and threaten to block me, given that all I did was make a single change that you happened to disagree with? Was it ok to publicly call me out as a sock puppet just because I also happen not to have an account? Was it ok to block edits to your own talk page for two years? Was any of this ok?
- Do you intend to accept any responsibility for your actions? Do you have any regret at all, except at the inconvenience that this has caused you? Are you going to do this all over again to someone else the next time you have the opportunity?
- Those are the questions I'd like answers to; from you, or from those who are responsible for punishing abusive behavior by fellow administrators. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Additional request: I would like Drmies' talk page to be immediately unprotected unless there is actual, ongoing vandalism. This is what policy demands, and it's especially egregious for an administrator to use their power to silence those who would respond to them. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Again, he did not protect his own talk page. Please stop casting aspersions w.r.t. to the protection of his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- He protected the sock puppet's talk page, which is what led to this. He also kept his own page protected. I don't know if he's the one who first protected it, but there's no reason it should be protected now. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Again, he did not protect his own talk page. Please stop casting aspersions w.r.t. to the protection of his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Additional request: I would like Drmies' talk page to be immediately unprotected unless there is actual, ongoing vandalism. This is what policy demands, and it's especially egregious for an administrator to use their power to silence those who would respond to them. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Clear boomerang. The issue starts from here when an IP (72.86.137.151 ) added controversial content, which was reverted here by User:Checco. The IP then reverted Checco with this edit summary
Checco being Checco, edit warring because he is always in the right
. The IP was reverted again but this time by User:Nigel Abe. The IP was blocked later for personal attacks e.g ([19],[20],[21]) and editwarring. Just 2 hours later Nigel gets reverted by a new IP 68.197.116.79 who is the OP. Then Nigel reverts the IP/OP here. Nigel then made a warning to the IP/OP sayingHello, your edits at Brothers of Italy are becoming disruptive. You’ve been reverted multiple times...
[22] the IP/OP responded by sayingThat turns out not to be the case. I edited that article exactly once...
andYou owe me a retraction and an apology, good sir..
[23] then made a post in Nigel's talk page asking him to apologize sayingYou slandered me on my talk page.
[24]. A warning by Drmies was sent to the IP. IP accused Drmies of "threatening him" The IP 72.86.136.17 shows up the next day and reverts Nigel here, the IP gets reverted by Drmies. Recently Nigal was blocked and the IP/OP started telling Drmies that he sided with a sockpupppet and that Drmies should apologize which is IMO stupid, no one knew that Nigel was a sockpuppet and no one actually sided with the sockpuppet himself but with the correct content. There was no threatening and I suggest that the IP should stop demanding an apology from other editors with that attitude. Also, when there is a disputed content you should not reinstate the content unless there is consensus read WP:BRD.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a definite case of blame-the-victim. Whatever you think of me, Drmies' actions are still unacceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was wrong. This isn't just blaming the victim; it's blaming the victim by bringing up irrelevant stuff. I'm not responsible for the behavior of User:72.86.137.151 and nothing they did is any excuse for Drmies to threaten to block me for "vandalism" when it was a good-faith edit.
- Nothing I did excuses Drmies' actions. Nothing you brought up, no matter how irrelevant, excuses Drmies' actions. He abused his administrative privileges and he abused me. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your behaviour has been disruptive, you are treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Instead of playing the victim card and demanding an apology, consider... apologising yourself? --MrClog (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- As much as you might like otherwise, my behavior is not at issue here. Nothing I did forced Drmies to abuse their administrative privileges.
- Simple question: When they accused me of vandalism and of being a sock puppet, was that acceptable? Yes or no? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is quite posibly one of the greatest WP:BOOMERANG moments I've ever seen. Ed6767 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was wrong. This isn't just blaming the victim; it's blaming the victim by bringing up irrelevant stuff. I'm not responsible for the behavior of User:72.86.137.151 and nothing they did is any excuse for Drmies to threaten to block me for "vandalism" when it was a good-faith edit.
- Yes, this is a definite case of blame-the-victim. Whatever you think of me, Drmies' actions are still unacceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfPP is backlogged
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Again. I am going to start at the top. If someone wants to start at the bottom and work up maybe we can knock this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like we met in the middle. El_C 02:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My original account
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Meta-wiki administrators, I am requesting any of you to unlock my original account Bishal Khan which is globally locked, please unlock it, I am a Bengali and primarily I edit in Bengali-Wiki articles. ফেমিন টি. (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked. If this account is indeed Bishal Khan, they are evading the WMF ban. If it isn't, they are lying and impersonating a WMF-banned account. Imma notify the WMF folks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Undeletion request
Hi! Can someone undelete:
- File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg it is used in ms.wiki: ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg / ms:Batu Pahat (bandar)
- File:Coord1b.png is used in ms:Pengenalan kerelatifan khas
So I can move to Commons :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you need File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg restored when there's an exact copy at ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: because the original should be moved to Commons and not the copy to make sure we keep the trail intact and attribute the right author. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Fastily: you also work on Commons. Perhaps you wanna comment? Do you agree that the original is better than a copy from another project? --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've transferred File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg to Commons. Not done for File:Coord1b.png, because it is missing a source, making it eligible for deletion both here and on Commons. -FASTILY 05:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Fastily. No source? I think the standard action for that is slapping the uploader with a trout? ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've transferred File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg to Commons. Not done for File:Coord1b.png, because it is missing a source, making it eligible for deletion both here and on Commons. -FASTILY 05:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Fastily: you also work on Commons. Perhaps you wanna comment? Do you agree that the original is better than a copy from another project? --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: because the original should be moved to Commons and not the copy to make sure we keep the trail intact and attribute the right author. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Inappropriate behavior in the Ritual (film) article
Wikipedia administrators,I tried to insert the name of the second screenwriter (Joe is the first) , but another person (Juliete) blatantly deleted it. There is a link after her name , totally fine and clickable. Please tell Juliete that this is not OK to delete names of people , who worked hard on this film. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ritual_(2017_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- OP has been repeatedly reverted and asked to provide a source. I protected the page with a note that they discuss. I have given them a warning for edit warring. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would have thought, Deepfriedokra, that when two editors, one registered and confirmed, and one unregistere4d, are reverting back and forth, that protection to mrequire auto-confirmed, which stops one but not the other from editing, was not the best tactic. Is that what other admins would do? I posted to the article talk page, pinging the registered editor, and was about to warn the non-registered editor, when I saw your protection edit. I would add that the IP did not notify the registered editor of this thread, as should have been done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's appropriate to stop the edit warring. It's not like one side loses and the other side wins. They can now discuss on the talk page. ALso, I think SP is the least restrictive action. WOuld it be better to allow the disruption to continue? WOuld it be better to prevent anyone from editing? Also, I believe it was more than one editor they were warring with. Please feel free to remove protection if you think it inappropriate. What would you have done? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra If it is a true edit war, then you have advantaged one party by your choice of protection. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Guidance_for_administrators particularly
Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e. in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved.
--Izno (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)- @Deepfriedokra: I left a message in response to DESiegel's comment on the relevant Talk page. Since you protected this article and left a note, I would be glad to hear your opinion on my explanations of why I don't believe it was an edit warring case on my end. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Inviting Izno and other interested administrators to express their opinion. Thanks. Juliette Han (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Deepfriedokra, I would have warned both editors, first on the article talk page (with a ping to the registered editor), and then on the IP's talk page, threatening a block if the reverts did not stop. Thew history looks to me like only two editors involved. The registered editor has already responded at the article talk page, BTW, and says that the edits were hoax-vandalism, and so, reverts were not edit warring. I tend to disagree, but no more reverts are happening, so ... DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- This looks clearly to me like disruptive editing by an IP who is adding false information into articles and citing sources that do not support the content. The IP is now also doing the same with Midsommar (film), and probably needs to be blocked soon if they continue with this vandalism. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Normally I'm opposed to semi-protection when there is an edit war between confirmed editors and non confirmed ones or IPs. As said, it effectively favours the non confirmed ones in the dispute whereas per WP:WRONGVERSION etc, neither side should be intentionally favoured or both should be sanctioned. However I have a hard time caring when a said below, the editor is adding info in manner worse than without providing a source. They are providing a source but it doesn't support what they are adding. Such editing is IMO far worse then your run of the mill addition of unsourced information, since I think we all know that when there is a source provided, often editors will just assume it's correct. At least the editor seems to insist on drawing our attention to the fact they are doing this but still..... Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that the other problem is semi protection disadvantages all non confirmed editors even over edits which aren't in conflict and where it may not be needed because those who are actually causing the problems could simply be blocked. Anyway as I said considering the major problems with the IP's edits combined with the fact the article is fairly obscure so there probably wasn't any other non confirmed editor likely to edit, it's not worth worrying too much about what happened.
But it is worth remembering that in a case that is more of a wash where it's clearer both sides are edit warring over a change which is arguable either way, semi protection only stops edit warring because it ensure one side "wins" rather than stopping it partly randomly. (Although it is true that despite WRONGVERSION, in reality even just protecting whatever you encounter can mean you are more likely to favour the editor who is faster on the draw and therefore potentially more aggressive in the edit war.)
I mean I guess if you visit an article and find it's currently at the version preferred by the confirmed editor, functionality it's fairly similar to full protection or just blocking everyone (or semi protecting where both sides are non confirmed). But if you visit an article and it's currently at the non-confirmed preference version and semi-protect then what may easily happen is the confirmed editor reverts one more time then it ends since the non-confirmed can no longer edit war. If you plan to block the confirmed editor if they do that, then I guess that is okay but in practice I think the confirmed editor simply gets their last edit in without consequence.
I agree with DES that in the general case, the best bet is probably just to warn both editors and block anyone of them who continues. In most cases a partial block for the article will likely be sufficient ensuring they can take part in the discussing the dispute while not being able to edit war.
- @Deepfriedokra: I left a message in response to DESiegel's comment on the relevant Talk page. Since you protected this article and left a note, I would be glad to hear your opinion on my explanations of why I don't believe it was an edit warring case on my end. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra If it is a true edit war, then you have advantaged one party by your choice of protection. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Guidance_for_administrators particularly
- I think it's appropriate to stop the edit warring. It's not like one side loses and the other side wins. They can now discuss on the talk page. ALso, I think SP is the least restrictive action. WOuld it be better to allow the disruption to continue? WOuld it be better to prevent anyone from editing? Also, I believe it was more than one editor they were warring with. Please feel free to remove protection if you think it inappropriate. What would you have done? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would have thought, Deepfriedokra, that when two editors, one registered and confirmed, and one unregistere4d, are reverting back and forth, that protection to mrequire auto-confirmed, which stops one but not the other from editing, was not the best tactic. Is that what other admins would do? I posted to the article talk page, pinging the registered editor, and was about to warn the non-registered editor, when I saw your protection edit. I would add that the IP did not notify the registered editor of this thread, as should have been done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I was AGFing and hoping OP would discuss their proposed changes on the talk page. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
User wallyfromdilbert threatens me and actively deletes my contributions without any reason
Wikipedia administrators,I’m sorry to bother you again ,but now user wallyfromdilbert says that I vandalize Wikipedia , threatens me with blocking from editing and deletes my contributions without giving a reason. I didn’t vandalize Wikipedia , I mentioned a proving link. I ask you to open the previous page- I want to re-add the screenwriter with a new link. Why didn’t wallyfromdilbert give me a reason to delete my good quality contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- This has been explained on your talk page. You must provide a reliable source that supports the added material. Unsourced material or material that is not supported by the source can be removed. The material you're adding is not in the sources you've provided. It can therefore be removed. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (EC) Are you bored because of some lock down and trolling or something? I don't see why else you'd make such of an effort (2 AN threads and one help desk one) to draw attention to the fact you are going around adding names to the article [25] which were mentioned no where in the ref you provided [26] and warned because of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- It must be some sort of trolling because I cannot find any evidence of the name being added ever writing anything or even existing. The fact that the IP has started multiple threads about it leads to be believe they are just trying to waste our time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia is free ,and everyone can participate. This screenwriter (Eve) is simply shadowed by other people , involved in her films. I want to add her credits , but Juliete and Wallyfromdilbert are deleting everything good I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're not paying attention. All material added to wikipedia must be verifiable in a published source. This content cannot be added unless it is verifiable by looking in a published source that states she is the screenwriter. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, I would suggest that the WP:BOOMERANG should come full circle, and this IP should be blocked. They are either willfully trolling, or lack the WP:COMPETENCE to meaningfully participate. BD2412 T 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Edit warring to promote a supposed writer, with refs that don't even mention her, and then complaining at the Help desk and AN. CIR or trolling. Either way block and move on. Meters (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- OP Blocked x 24 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Balkan matters at Bookocide in Croatia
Those of you active in Balkan matters, and experienced with WP:BALKANS, please have a look at Talk:Bookocide_in_Croatia#This_is_trolling. That section title is already ridiculous, and the first post, "...obscure enough, or simply invented completely, and nobody suspect that such junk could exist in the project at all... referenced claptrap...", indicates that we are dealing with a problematic issue. That the article isn't made up or some propaganda thing is established well enough, even in that discussion (look at the sourcing provided by Antidiskriminator), and the editor who started it just posted a very long screed whose purpose (and, frankly, content) is just not clear to me. But it's not helpful. I have a few things to do right now and frankly I don't know what to do with this editor--I'm actually thinking that a partial block from that article is a possible outcome, if the editor thinks that what they're doing is OK. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, what certainly should be an outcome here is banning the author of the article in question, User:Antidiskriminator. The person who complained about the article may well have missed the mark, but it's obvious that the article as it stands is a ridiculously POV-laden piece of junk editing, full of unreliable or blatantly distorted sourcing. The title alone is a crime against the English language (needless to say, it's a complete invention by the article's author). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not my area of knowledge, but a two minute Google search easily established that the title is not "a complete invention by the article's author". The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. An example of an RS discussing the topic in English:[27] Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it "would" literally translate as that, if English worked that way, which it doesn't, and none of the reliable sources use this (included the one you just cited, which is just another review of the single Serbocroatian study that has dealt with the issue). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf., I really don't give a flying fuck about the title, but I do care for the topic. I also don't care much for Antidiskriminator, who likes to come by my talk page to bait me, but again, the topic is real enough. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't say anything about the topic not being real. Even though I'm not convinced it's really one topic; it may be either two topics conflated (illegitimately, because the sources take care to distinguish them), or a part of what is a single larger topic illegitimately factored out. But that's not really the point; the point is that the quality of the tendentious POV writing by Antidiskriminator is so crass and so obvious that it should earn him an immediate ban for disruptive editing, on the evidence of a mere cursory reading of the article. I honestly cannot understand how any competent administrator could possibly spend a minute reading the article and not immediately come to conclusion of pulling the ARBMAC trigger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf., I really don't give a flying fuck about the title, but I do care for the topic. I also don't care much for Antidiskriminator, who likes to come by my talk page to bait me, but again, the topic is real enough. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it "would" literally translate as that, if English worked that way, which it doesn't, and none of the reliable sources use this (included the one you just cited, which is just another review of the single Serbocroatian study that has dealt with the issue). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not my area of knowledge, but a two minute Google search easily established that the title is not "a complete invention by the article's author". The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. An example of an RS discussing the topic in English:[27] Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Image
Yes hi i am trying to make a image for Lauren London for her Wikipedia page can you assist me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahshion1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ahshion1: Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. The best places to ask for help with things like this is at the help desk or the teahouse. Try reposting your question there. Ed6767 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Appeal of E-Stylus
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- E-Stylus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Per their request, I am copying the appeal of E-Stylus to this board. I offer no opinion about the merits. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I am seeking your input regarding my unblock request. My account was blocked for "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services". Per my paid contribution disclosures, I have previously contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork, however I have never advertised paid Wikipedia-editing services nor is there any evidence to the contrary. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable by prospective clients when submitting a proposal to a job posting. I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 (1, 2) and I have never misrepresented my Wikipedia account.
After my account's block, the WP:PAID policy was expanded to require link disclosure for external accounts outside the scope of advertising. The amended policy was implemented by the proposer with 3 votes and 1 comment. It was then retroactively unfairly applied to support the blockage of my account. As the amended policy now requires disclosure of personally identifiable information that is not already public, I am asking that the community review this policy change with a standard of participation that meets the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Also, I am asking that the resulting PAID policy be added to the Wikimedia Foundation's alternative disclosure page with the other local community policies that "strengthen or reduce" the paid disclosure requirements of the Terms of Use. While these procedures may not remedy the questionable blocking of my account, they would at least offer wider consideration and documentation in line with community policies and the Terms of Use. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- The problem in this case is that E-Stylus is saying that their information is not public, because their profile is not publicly viewable. On Upwork, if you set your profile to private you don't advertise your services and no one can see your details. When you apply for a job the person you applied to can see your details, but you have to make the application.
- So in this case, what we are asking is that E-Stylus out their personal details in order to engage in paid editing, which creates a bit of a conflict between WP:Harassment and WP:Paid. In a more typical case the profile is public, so they are only linking to information they have already chosen to publicise, but according to E-Stylus that is not the case here. - Bilby (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Decline unblock this is not an unblock request. More of a manifesto or a complaint. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- rationale update per Yunshui et alia. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Decline unblock. If people are unwilling to declare their paid editing accounts publicly, they can not edit Wikipedia - at least, that's the way I read WP:PAID policy. It says "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services." Even if having a private Upwork account does not amount to advertising, it is still being used to "solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services". It might not have been a requirement in the past, but it is a requirement now. And an unblock request is not an appropriate venue for requesting changes to policy or to policy documentation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, E-Stylus' concern is that this wasn't the case until two weeks ago. They were editing under the older rules, which only refered to advertising. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. Even then, what constitutes advertising is still open to debate. Is contacting a client to offer a service in response to an Upwork request advertising that service? I think it is, and I see the recent change as really just clarifying the original intent (and trying to head off exactly this kind of Wikilawyering). It's clear to me from numerous previous cases that the Community requires paid editors to disclose their Upwork accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I always disagreed with that decision. While I'm not objecting to the block, and informed E-Stylus that they had to link to their account, what we've done is made it more and more favourable for paid editors to sock rather than try to be upfront. I don't know what the answer is, which is why I wanted to clarify things here, but we still don't have a handle on the problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate the conflict between controlling undeclared paid editing and driving paid editors underground, but that's not an issue for this unblock request. All that's relevant here is current policy (and its intent), and concerns regarding the effectiveness of that policy belong elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- If that was the case, then this would be simple - E-Stylus couldn't link to a profile, because there was no profile. But instead we're looking at intent. - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is simple - E-Stylus makes their Upwork account public and links to it, or they don't do any paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said as much, but it is unfortunate. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is simple - E-Stylus makes their Upwork account public and links to it, or they don't do any paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- If that was the case, then this would be simple - E-Stylus couldn't link to a profile, because there was no profile. But instead we're looking at intent. - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate the conflict between controlling undeclared paid editing and driving paid editors underground, but that's not an issue for this unblock request. All that's relevant here is current policy (and its intent), and concerns regarding the effectiveness of that policy belong elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I always disagreed with that decision. While I'm not objecting to the block, and informed E-Stylus that they had to link to their account, what we've done is made it more and more favourable for paid editors to sock rather than try to be upfront. I don't know what the answer is, which is why I wanted to clarify things here, but we still don't have a handle on the problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify the timeline: E-Stylus was originally blocked under the old wording of the page; I subsequently opened a discussion about changing the wording to avoid the Wikilawyering taking place on E-Stylus talkpage in the future, and since there was no objection after a reasonable length of time, I updated the policy accordingly. E-Stylus was blocked before either the discussion or the change took place, however, and so it is largely irrelevant to the block. Yunshui 雲水 11:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. Even then, what constitutes advertising is still open to debate. Is contacting a client to offer a service in response to an Upwork request advertising that service? I think it is, and I see the recent change as really just clarifying the original intent (and trying to head off exactly this kind of Wikilawyering). It's clear to me from numerous previous cases that the Community requires paid editors to disclose their Upwork accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, E-Stylus' concern is that this wasn't the case until two weeks ago. They were editing under the older rules, which only refered to advertising. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Decline unblock User who edit for pay effectively waive their right to anonymity, since such anonymity makes it impossible to check that they are in fact operating under the rules. You can make fat stacks, or you can be anonymous, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Yunshui 雲水 11:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Decline unblock per Yunshui. A paid editor follows the letter of the disclosure policy while undermining its intent by having a Upwork private account, just like they follow the letter of our content policies but undermine the nature of Wikipedia as a volunteer curated encyclopedia. No. MER-C 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Decline unblock Just because he's advertising his services in a private manner on a freelancing platform doesn't make it less WP:PAID. The fact that much of his work is negotiated privately makes it unaccountable even if he provides off-wiki details. The community will never know which edits are the result of paid services and which ones represent a genuine interest in a subject. That creates a difficult situation in policy making because it means that providing personal details doesn't ensure transparency.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: As my block has been called "questionable", I'd like to share my reasoning. The profile that a PE has on Upwork is their 'advertisement', and that is what they are required to link to. If they choose to use software settings so that only certain people can see it at certain times, that simply has the effect of attempting to circumvent the version of WP:PAID that was previously in force. However, I don't accept that hiding an advert until you want to use it makes it any less of an advert. As I said on E-Stylus' talk page, if I were to put an advert in the entrance hall of my house, so that it could only be seen by people that I invited into my house, would it then stop being an advert? I believe not. In my opinion, the defining nature of an advertisement is in its form, not in its visibility at any particular time. --RexxS (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - good block with sound reasoning, RexxS. --MrClog (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NOTTHEM. serial # 18:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The acceptable options are: editing for free, as almost all of us do; or full transparency. Choose one. Guy (help!) 20:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Decline unblock per everything I said at User_talk:E-Stylus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Decline unblock per the points raised above, WP:PAID is being infringed upon. The editor in question openly disclosed they were paid via Upwork to edit Wikipedia articles. Upwork's system works by having a client post contracts that are then bid on ("proposals" in Upwork terminology) by prospective freelancers. The client then interviews these bidders and decides which applicant(s) the contract will be extended to. In my view, any freelancer who bids on a contract to edit Wikipedia for pay is unambiguously advertising their ability to edit Wikipedia, and as such those who refuse to make their Upwork accounts publicly visible are in violation of WP:PAID. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
another LTA whose name I keep forgetting...
...this went on for 12 minutes, with none of the usual "vandal fighters" noticing, apparently. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I believe this is the culprit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Was about to say the same thing. It's Angela Criss.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I know, but that wasn't really the reason I posted. We got dozens of editors hitting "rollback" with every IP edit, but this, with all the obviously stupid edit summaries, goes unnoticed. BTW I just dropped a little rangeblock. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's no filters that work for this? And isn't this one of the cases for the WMF could take some action. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: is my go-to for edit filters.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I created Special:AbuseFilter/1058, log-only for now until it is tweaked more. I'll be monitoring. This gave me an idea for a nifty long-term filter, too! See the notes. — MusikAnimal talk 19:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:MusikAnimal, you get an extra cookie with your coffee. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- MusikAnimal, On that idea for a nifty filter, I note the existance of 364 . Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I created Special:AbuseFilter/1058, log-only for now until it is tweaked more. I'll be monitoring. This gave me an idea for a nifty long-term filter, too! See the notes. — MusikAnimal talk 19:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: is my go-to for edit filters.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Was about to say the same thing. It's Angela Criss.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Twinkle misuse
I know this comes up periodically, but the archives are a pain to navigate. Is there a way to block an editor from using Twinkle without blocking the editor themselves? Or, alternatively, can admins or the community topic ban an editor from using Twinkle? JTZegers (talk · contribs) has been using Twinkle to post inappropriate warning templates, they've started incorrect AfD nominations, including nominating the Main Page for deletion yesterday, and has now reported the user warning sandbox to the edit warring noticeboard. I've asked JTZegers to seek a mentor as they seem determined to dive in to all areas of editing regardless of their ability to do so, but in the meantime it would be helpful to restrict their use of Twinkle entirely until they can demonstrate they've gained the competence required to use it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Now that it's a gadget, I don't think there's a blacklist anymore. Just block them for IDHT and incompetence if they use Twinkle inappropriately after being told by - what, 4 different people? - to slow down and be more careful. This is a common path that a lot of young new editors go down, and I've noticed that many do not understand that they actually have to back off until they get blocked. I think they've had enough notes and warnings. Block on the next screw-up. I wish new editors couldn't turn on the Twinkle gadget for a month or two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, because this is ancient history, but I remember there being a Twinkle blacklist back in 2010 as I recall helping mentor an editor (whose name I can't remember) who had been Twinkle blacklisted for similar reasons, and I also vaguely recall being able to turn on Twinkle through preferences back then which would imply it was a gadget. I may just be misremembering, feel free to disregard. CJK09 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's basically correct. I can dig out the conversation about removing the blacklist if you like, but the general consensus was it's more hassle than it's worth. My belief is basically in agreement with what we have here: disruption is disruption, and can be handled through the typical means. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps Twinkle could be tied to extended-confirmed status? I've seen this over and over again even in just the last few days. CJK09 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, because this is ancient history, but I remember there being a Twinkle blacklist back in 2010 as I recall helping mentor an editor (whose name I can't remember) who had been Twinkle blacklisted for similar reasons, and I also vaguely recall being able to turn on Twinkle through preferences back then which would imply it was a gadget. I may just be misremembering, feel free to disregard. CJK09 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'd be happy to mentor JTZegers. I was an overeager new editor a long time back and I feel I can offer good advice. Feel free to look for someone more experienced though. CJK09 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I say take CJK09 up on their offer; for what it's worth, there's a danger in getting someone too experienced because they'll either be old and grumpy or just teach 'em bad habits :) and CJK09 strikes me as neither. Of course, you may wish to block while the mentoring is in place, to avoid temptation; can it be enforced via the WP:PB mechanism? serial # 18:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've made an offer on their user talk page. CJK09 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: what say ye? Although I support the mentoring (since we have a lucky volunteer for the job), but as the whole point of this thread was to save volunteer's time rather than add to it, perhaps it may be best if they do so without the tool. That way, they learn with their mentor while avoid tying up those who may follow. serial # 18:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the mentorship and definitely thank CJK09 for taking it on, but this is pretty much a last shot. I'm not convinced that JTZegers will be able to resist the lure of Twinkle due to an unfortunate mix of over-enthusiasm and lack of editing competence, which was why I was hoping for a way to restrict access to the gadget entirely. We shall see.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: what say ye? Although I support the mentoring (since we have a lucky volunteer for the job), but as the whole point of this thread was to save volunteer's time rather than add to it, perhaps it may be best if they do so without the tool. That way, they learn with their mentor while avoid tying up those who may follow. serial # 18:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- How does a new editor start using Twinkle very early on in their wiki-career? I know WP:AGF and all that, but the flags being raised suggests they've been here a while, and this isn't their first account. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: They could've just screwed around with their settings. It should be pretty clear that they don't know what their doing with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: They could've just screwed around with their settings. It should be pretty clear that they don't know what their doing with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- The Community obviously could TBAN someone from Twinkle, but in 99% cases where there'd be evidence for that, we'd already have acted, probably via a block as mentioned above. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't ask me to provide diffs, because it would take me too long to find them, but I know that I have quite a few times seen new editors encouraged to use Twinkle because it makes it easier to tell others what they are doing wrong. New editors should not be bossing others around, but finding out about Wikipedia by improving articles manually. I don't know the technical details of how this can be implemented, but we certainly shouldn't have editors with access to semi-automated tools before they have demonstrated that they have a bit of clue. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hear, hear!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger for God Emperor of Wikipedia! (well, Co-God Emperor) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
History merge needed?
ResolvedOne of the articles I moved to draft space as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2 is Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel. That draft contains some deleted revisions that apparently are an artefact of a deletion by User:Anthony Bradbury on 26 April and restoration by User:Primefac on 27 April. There are, however, other, interspersed revisions that were made on those dates that remain in the draft's regular history. I admit, I can't figure out what exactly went on there. Not being conversant with history merges, I'm afraid I'll mess something up by simply pressing Restore at the "View and restore deleted pages" page. Would that be the right thing to do, or is some more-complicated action needed to ensure that the deleted revisions are restored in the proper chronological positions in the draft's history? Deor (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why not wait until it is time to move Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel to main space? Then you could file a WP:RMTR and leave a note in your request that a history merge with the deleted Phoenix Park Hotel is needed. WP:Requests for history merge is available but WP:RMTR is simpler. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I'm feeling somewhat embarrassed because when I moved the article to draft I deleted an existing draft at that title to complete the move. What I can't figure out is why some folks were editing both the draft (as the deleted revisions indicate) and the article at the same time. I'm not sure whether restoring the deleted revisions is even needed here, since all the revisions to the actual article I draftified are apparently in the current draft's history. I'm getting too old for this shit. Deor (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- In my view the main concern is that all substantive contributions ought to be saved in the history to the degree possible, whichever place they were made originally and wherever the resulting article ends up. If things get too confusing you may be able to satisfy the attribution needs by leaving some note on the article talk page to list the contributors. If there is anything worse than a history merge, it is having to undo a history merge. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deor, if the only thing you did was delete Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel before moving Phoenix Park Hotel to its place, then you're all set and you don't need to do anything; the draft was (more or less) a duplicate of the article anyway. Everything that needed to be dealt with prior to the draftification was dealt with (long story short, there were parallel histories, a histmerge, a page split, an improper G7, and a whole bunch of other nonsense). Thanks for checking though! Primefac (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- As an additional note, and I'm only saying this because it's the third or fourth time I've seen it in as many days, NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A HISTMERGE. I've seen a few editors who will ask for it any time there's even close to shared history, and (worse still) I've seen in the past a few admins who will blindly jump into a histmerge whether or not it makes sense. If there are parallel histories then the pages should not be merged. </high horse> Primefac (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Primefac. It's good to know that I didn't screw things up in a major way. Deor (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- In my view the main concern is that all substantive contributions ought to be saved in the history to the degree possible, whichever place they were made originally and wherever the resulting article ends up. If things get too confusing you may be able to satisfy the attribution needs by leaving some note on the article talk page to list the contributors. If there is anything worse than a history merge, it is having to undo a history merge. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I'm feeling somewhat embarrassed because when I moved the article to draft I deleted an existing draft at that title to complete the move. What I can't figure out is why some folks were editing both the draft (as the deleted revisions indicate) and the article at the same time. I'm not sure whether restoring the deleted revisions is even needed here, since all the revisions to the actual article I draftified are apparently in the current draft's history. I'm getting too old for this shit. Deor (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
New SPA publishing false biographical information
- Qwerty3141592654 (talk · contribs · count) is publishing false biographical information on Nassim Nicholas Taleb page and being reverted. The statements do not match the source. Looks patently like an account created to put negative information. I reverted and asked to discuss on talk page. He also violated the 3RR. Limit-theorem (talk)
Template:Limit-theorem is deleting a section that includes well-sourced news articles. The section may be amended, but suppressing the evidence is outright misleading. I understand that Template:Limit-theorem has an economic interest is protecting Taleb's reputation, but facts should prevail. Qwerty3141592654 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- The comments posted do not reflect the sources. This is the problem for me, not the subject of the biography. Further User:Qwerty3141592654 explicitly created the account to post the strange information. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've notified Qwerty3141592654 about our edit warring policy. Qπ, you've been reverted by two other editors, please follow WP:BRD. Patient discussion at the article talk page, and following WP:DR if that doesn't work, are the way to address the disagreement. Also, don't cavalierly throw around accusations of having an "economic interest in protecting Taleb's reputation". You can't just assume stuff like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ Floquenbeam Qwerty3141592654 keeps reverting all changes (in spite of your warning) although what he intends is now mentioned in the article with correct reference to the source. He violated the 3RR even 5RR after your warning. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ Floquenbeam Qwerty3141592654 keeps reverting all changes (in spite of your warning) although what he intends is now mentioned in the article with correct reference to the source. He violated the 3RR even 5RR after your warning. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Lift bans
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please can I ask for the following bans to be lifted: TBAN covering the ARBPIA; TBAN covering Zionism; TBAN covering the Western Wall. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- More likely to be successful if you:
- Link to the discussion where they were imposed
- Explain how you are going to approach the subjects differently
- This contextless one-sentence request is almost guaranteed to be rejected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know where to find the relevant links. I do not recall why these bans were given. Chesdovi (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Link to WP:AE section where the tobic bans were imposed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=711870151#Chesdovi. That thread contains a link to the original ARBPIA topic ban. You may also want to check your block log to refresh your memory on what the problem was. Sir Joseph is correct below; simply not editing for 4 years, and then asking to have the topic bans lifted on your return, is hardly ever successful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know where to find the relevant links. I do not recall why these bans were given. Chesdovi (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Chesdovi, as I told you on your talk page, you need to ask at WP:AE, and I did suggest that for someone to reappear from a long hiatus, it might be worthwhile to edit in another area for a little while and then ask. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Sir Joseph and Floquenbeam. Would need a period of time editing w/o difficulties to show readiness for end of TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Striking comments from banned sockpuppets and modifying archived comments
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the past day, JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sockpuppet of the community-banned user NoCal100 (talk · contribs), who has created dozens of sockpuppets in the last 12 years and is documented in a long-term abuse page. The JungerMan Chips Ahoy! account was created in 2011 and had posted hundreds of comments in talk and project spaces in violation of NoCal100's 2009 block and previous ban (under WP:3X).
I struck a large number of these edits in the manner described in WP:SOCKSTRIKE with the understanding that it was supported by the WP:BANREVERT and WP:BE policies, which state that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a" block or ban. However, three editors expressed concerns on my talk page at User talk:Newslinger § striking comments, and I've halted the striking to bring the matter for feedback here. The feedback I receive will determine whether I revert any of the strikes, and how I strike comments going forward.
The first three of the following questions relate to the striking, while the last two are on other practices that I had assumed was okay, but would like confirmation. My questions are:
- Is it acceptable to strike comments from blocked sockpuppets of previously blocked or banned users on talk pages and noticeboards, with a signed note explaining the striking?
- Is it acceptable to strike comments from blocked sockpuppets of previously blocked or banned users in archives of talk pages and noticeboards, with a signed note explaining the striking?
- Examples: Special:Diff/956654215, Special:Diff/956669192
- Is it acceptable to strike comments from blocked sockpuppets of previously blocked or banned users in closed discussions or RfCs, with a signed note explaining the striking?
- Examples: Special:Diff/956672048, Special:Diff/956664506
- Is it acceptable to add the {{unsigned}} template to unsigned comments in archived discussions?
- Examples: Special:Diff/946143889, Special:Diff/955489265
- Is it acceptable to fix formatting issues in archived discussions?
- Example: Special:Diff/876885117
Thank you for your help. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment I am generally OK with all of these. While I appreciate the desire to keep archival pages frozen as, well, archives, the fact that we refer back to those archives for purposes like WP:RSP means that we should have the same information available for old discussions as we would for more recently-live ones. (Freezing archival pages in place is almost always the right thing, but that can't be absolute. Surely we'd remove BLP violations from an archived talk page, if they weren't discovered until after the archiving.) I think I would prefer the notice of the striking to be up at the top of the archive page, for clarity. A possible alternative to striking would be a template that says, e.g. "One or more participants in the discussion below were blocked sockpuppets", with appropriate details and links, for use at the top of the page. As far as formatting errors go, most are inconsequential, but misplaced <small> markup can interfere with transclusion and are best tidied up. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am just not a fan of editing archives. Per WP:TPG in the "Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets" section,
There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived.
Which I believe to be the case here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC) - I'm with PackMecEng in this case, and about those posts on RSN, I'd be OK with simply removing them (unless they have been substantially addressed). Socks are disruptive because they poison the atmosphere, and that's the kind of poison we simply should not allow on boards like BLPN and RSN, where important decisions are sometimes made. Socking racists have no place on this project, and their comments should not be allowed anywhere. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to not amend the archival pages, even in sock cases, for most instances. I'm sure there are some cases where it should logically be argued they should be struck, and in instances where their (!)vote(s) led to a different decision being made, it should be both struck and probably restarted as a discussion. However, I would say the general view should be not to change. I'd be fine with the template XOR offers. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. I think it's fine on active talk pages - strike through that has a reply, delete text with no reply. Leave at least an edit summary explaining what you've done, if there's time a note at the bottom of a discussion. XOR's template looks good with archives and I'd probably delete any racist comments - if there has been a reply, maybe add something about racist comment by sock redacted. On archives it's a judgement call, and definitely if an actual decision was made that would not have been made without the sock(s), it might be a good idea to reopen it with a link to the original discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- IMO, I think striking archive comments by a sockpuppet of LTA account is needed especially in the reliable source noticeboard.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sockstrikes on open discussions is fine but I would say no to editing archived discussions. Except in the case of removing libel, outing, etc, going back to mess with closed discussions seems like pointless unproductive fussing. Furthermore it erodes confidence that archives actually reflect the state of the discussion as it was when it was closed. Reyk YO! 08:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment there is no policy that says we should not strike sockpuppets of blocked editor comments. SO there is no basis for any editor to complain about striking a sockpuppet comment. Newslinger should be allowed to do that without anyone complaining his/her talk page.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I crossed off multiple comments by the same editor who was using another sockpuppets in a closed RfC. Later an editor asked for changing the outcome of the RfC since there were lots of socks of this editor in them and it was change. [28]. Again, no rule or policy that says you shouldnt strike sockpuppets comments in archived discussion. If Newslinger stopped because of the editors who argued that it displease them, I am going to do it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Spiting people is a bad reason for doing anything. Reyk YO! 09:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with striking them in active discussions, but doing so for long-inactive ones just seems pointless. I definitely don't think editing closed discussions or archived pages is a good idea; if a comment is struck post-close, it may appear that the struck !vote was ignored in the close (I appreciate this can be partially resolved by noting the time/date of the striking, but I still think it's probably not a good idea). If a non-struck comment from a sock is ever relied upon in a future discussion, it can easily be point out that they were a sock. Separately, the striking of JungerMan Chips Ahoy!'s comment at Talk:Mtanes Shehadeh#Image has created a bit of an issue, as they were the only editor to respond to requests for input on a dispute over an infobox image. If anyone else wants to weigh in (on what should be a relatively straightforward issue), that would be great. Cheers, Number 57 09:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, it's not pointless. Those of us who have had debates in talk page discussions know exactly that archives are effective and important. Imagine that there was a RfC about including content in the article. 90% of those who particpated in that RfC were sockpuppets of the same editor, just imagine. The RfC was closed and the sockpuppets got what they wanted. The RfC was archived. After months the sockpuppets were exposed. After 2 years, an editor comes and tries to remove the content that was added. Another editor reverts him and tells him that there was a RfC and the consensus was to include the content. The poor editor doesn't have time to check if there were sockpuppets in that discussion, and he also didn't install the script that shows him who is blocked(. If Newslinger had stricken the comments that were made by the sockpuppets, that editor would have noticed the sockpuppets and argued that the RfC was full of sockpuppets and therefore it isn't legitimate. This story is not real but it can happen.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I heartily support the striking of sock comments (and the deletion thereof if they have not received replies); less so the busy work that is adjusting archives. Although it is theoretically possible that a sock may have tipped the balance in a previous discussion it is unlikely to go unnoticed by those engaged contemporaneously. By the same token, it is solely contextual as to whether (struck or not) that earlier discussion will need overwriting. An RfA? Of course not. An AfD? Certainly. An RfC? Probably. For everything else, there's common sense. And common sense dictates that editng old archives tends towards the unnecessary.For the record, If SharʿabSalam replies to this message as they have replied to so many above, it should be considered bludgeoning, and a continuance, effectively, of the same behavior that has already earned them a topic ban from Iranian politics, broadly construed. serial # 10:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also in agreement with PackMecEng and Drmies here - No objections to their comments being striked or deleted on active-unclosed pages, But their comments on closed or archived pages should be left, Like PackMecEng I'm not a fan of people messing about with archives either and would obviously rather they be left be. –Davey2010Talk 11:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Socks have lost their right to many portions of WP policy. As much as I like objective rules this needs judgement call rule. The sock made a random talk page point or discussion, don't bother. The sock weighed in on making a decision (RFC, XFD, Nomination, etc) should be struck and called out as a sock. Hasteur (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- There was discussion of archive editing in June 2018 in a WP:TALK thread Editing talk page archives. Perhaps Rhododendrites who made this edit remembers who originally came up with the WP:TALKO wording "There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived." Anyway: I believe that Newslinger should have asked on WP:TALK talk page not here; I believe that the guideline is against making such changes; I believe that guidelines matter and essays (e.g. WP:SOCKSTRIKE) don't. By the way Newslinger incorrectly struck a comment by me, and although that was quickly corrected I do worry that some similar errors could get archived, so there is one possible reason for an exception: "If a comment was struck in error, and was archived, it is okay to change the archive to remove the striking." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- While its often very *useful* when browsing archived discussions to know who has subsequently been banned etc, there isnt a huge need for it. Even in areas which attract a lot of socks like IP etc. The most useful of course, is when people refer to previous consensus discussions in order to shut down current discussion and it turns out half the previous participants were socks (not that unusual an occurance sadly). So I have no real issue with striking (not removing or editing) comments in archives that were posted in violation of sockpuppetry (they were clearly and proveably socking against policy at the time of the comment) - the full discussion can still be seen, no ones comments are removed, and the context of the discussion is clear. But archives should not be touched for any other reason. Thats pretty much the only benefit to altering archives to clearly identify sock comments. And as Number 57 points out, there are downsides to that - as the close (if it had a formal one) will then not reflect the visible appearance of the discussion. Personally I would prefer an easy and quick way to just tag on "Users X, X and X were subsequently found to be socking in violation of policy" to important discussions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- A couple years ago, while cleaning up after a sock I saw a little disagreement about how to handle it. I noticed that the language of WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:TPO were ambiguous and seemed to conflict, in some ways, with actual practice (see discussions here and here). The "There is not typically a need..." language began with the WP:SOCKSTRIKE advice about not being "nitpicky" translated for actual practice. It intentionally doesn't say doing so is prohibited -- just that blindly striking everything doesn't help anyone. I could see cases where striking and/or redacting comments and/or leaving a note at the end of closed or archived discussions would be appropriate. For example a first RfC intended to lead to a second RfC, or purely disruptive material, or to leave a note where the sock may have influenced a close, etc.
To respond to Newslinger's direct questions: (1) yes, but I agree with Doug that removing is often preferable if nobody has replied; (2) only with good reason; (3) if it's recent enough that it's still being discussed, then yes. Otherwise, only with good reason. With a formally closed discussion I think it's probably better to leave a note outside of the hat; (4) yes. I'm surprised this is controversial. We should be able to look back at a discussion and know who said what; (5) only if they make the page unreadable, like some of the linter errors did, and in a case like that it's usually better to use a bot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC) - From the above comments, the only area of real dispute seems to be comments in closed and archived discussions. Leaving those comments alone just because they are over and done with is not helpful to the project. In areas such as noticeboards and talk pages, archived discussions are vital records of decisions and leaving a racist troll's comments as they were is not useful to the project. The answer to questions all Newslinger's questions is "yes". Although question five's "yes" is somewhat moot if the comment to be re-formatted is already struck or deleted. The examples given all make what has happened and why clear. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- My only recollection, perhaps only interaction with the Junger sock was the wp:bludgeoning comments on the World Health Organization discussion at RSN. Regardless of whether that has been archived, those comments should be struck in case we need to go back to review that discussion on an international organization. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- IMO I don't think it's right that archives should be altered in this way – they are supposed to a record of the discussion at that time. I agree with User:Number 57 that it may give a misleading impression of how the discussion appeared to the closer.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm also of the "changing comments from long-dead discussions is a bad idea" mindset. I'm not sure what would define "recent enough", but if I catch a blocked user commenting actively, and their comments are recent, I will remove and/or strike the recent comments. But if we're at the point of combing through years-old archives in search of a damnatio memoriae solution, that seems like overkill. We've had a recent case of a sock being undetected for 2+ years (see User:DroneB) that was recently blocked; it is SO not worth going through years of archives to deal with those discussions. Block and move on is my attitude on something like this. --Jayron32 18:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Active discussions seems like a no-brainer. However, striking out comments from archived or closed discussions just seems like unnecessary work. But... if someone actually wants to do that, go ahead. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Instead of striking old comments, a template along the lines of Template:Single-purpose account could be made, so that a statement after the remark would say "— Example (talk • contribs) has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js installed for precisely this kind of situation. It strikes through the name of users that are currently blocked, which is a big red flag to check their page & see why. I don't think we should manually go through and change archives like this, but it'd be nice if something like this script code was part of the default user skin file or something. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick protection action for Deandre Baker please?
Could an admin protect Deandre Baker please? Ed6767 is doing their best to keep up but it's a major onslaught (Miami PD just tweeted about an arrest warrant for Baker...) Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The day after I add a recent changes alert to RedWarn is when I need it most lmao Ed6767 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Schazjmd, also ty Ed6767 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Will work on warning all users when done Ed6767 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done, although as I type this I realize I forgot the stupid icon again. Will add momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam - Phew, thanks Ed6767 (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Will work on warning all users when done Ed6767 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
RFPP backlog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello all, it looks like there is a bit of a backlog over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Some requests have been there for more than a day. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll start at 45 and work upward. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Banned editor with diacritics as a hobby
I'm sure some of you remember that indef-banned (blocked?) editor who was all gung-ho about diacritics--it's been a few years, I think. I have the feeling that Lennymire is of that ilk, and a CU might have something to add here as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- This may involve cross-wiki abuse. Every redirect this user removed and subsequently restored was also added to Wikidata. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is the best I could find. I remember several editors who had this particular editing tic, but that was the most obvious I could find. Maybe that one? --Jayron32 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is Dolyn. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Now, recent
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a noticeboard on here as well as this pg. The fact that I was told there is zero chance that a deletion review would be successful is indicative of the problem or occurrence. Angelina Green is a teenager. There seem to be biases on this site against AGT (America's Got Talent) artists, young performers in general especially new ones, golden buzzer artists on the program, artists from other tv shows or sitcoms for example, and other personalities in business and entertainment. Further "vendettas" in a sense are held, users piggyback on others' misshapen or formed ideas. They track, "spy" using the watch functions on the site, and seek to keep people's names and art unmentioned. Said users don't even know how to properly edit, often are involved in new page patrols and the like. Something should also be done about the ineptitude of admins closing and evaluating AfDs correctly. Finally the throwing out of votes in AfD cases is improperly done and used incorrectly. That's not to say that sometimes it should be utilized. Thanks. Momentum7 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what "America's Got Talent" is or what a "golden buzzer" is. But don't give up hope. We've got an article on Gene Gene the Dancing Machine, so maybe you can have an article some day, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Supposedly Wiki is your friend, look up AGT and the buzzer. While you're at it look at how many AGT contestants have articles on here and how many won a golden buzzer. Further you could research GGtDM. No one tried to delete his page. Also explain how Wikipedia is full of non-serious strange people who can't be reasoned with. Momentum7 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is clearly in response to this discussion on @78.26:'s talk page. You have been told the proper place to proceed is WP:DRV, which is correct. This is not the place to hash out a page deletion, and should promptly be closed as such. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the "ineptitude of admins" is a reference to my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelina Green (2nd nomination). SpinningSpark 07:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good close, weeding out the IDLI-ADTs is something too often overlooked. By the way, has anyone asked User:Momentum7 to clarify their conflict of interest regarding the article subject? serial # 10:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- It would make a good collective noun, "an ineptitude of admins" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- See? Classic tricks going on here, look. Now look away, nothing to see here. We're all carny workers and this is a sideshow. Now to get back to things. Some of you aren't taking much seriously. There are biases going on. Sometimes when editors are shown that they are less than civil they use Wiki-speak and say that they didn't mean anything by it. They don't really keep track. Tell that to the people that follow topics for a few years. It's not one teenager that performs for huge audiences being slighted. This happens all over the site. Momentum7 (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you're not suggesting that non-notable subjects are being deleted all over the site? You are? Great news, thanks :) serial # 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- See? Classic tricks going on here, look. Now look away, nothing to see here. We're all carny workers and this is a sideshow. Now to get back to things. Some of you aren't taking much seriously. There are biases going on. Sometimes when editors are shown that they are less than civil they use Wiki-speak and say that they didn't mean anything by it. They don't really keep track. Tell that to the people that follow topics for a few years. It's not one teenager that performs for huge audiences being slighted. This happens all over the site. Momentum7 (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is not thoughtful or well expressed dialogue. One of the posters on here doesn't even know what show AGT is let alone the golden buzzer. I am resisting getting drawn into your charade. We aren't talking about one tv show. The biased opinions on here are affecting many individuals and bands. It is a sport, new page patrollers are sometimes wacko. Momentum7 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'll talk in basic terms for you not "wiki-speak". She's not notable. Period. We have guidelines that an individual needs to meet to warrant an article, she doesn't meet them. When she DOES meet them, by all means come back and repost an article about her. Just being on a national TV show doesn't warrant an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Notwithstanding your avoidance of Wikispeak, their replies further down suggest that the WP:IDHT is strong in this one. serial # 13:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'll talk in basic terms for you not "wiki-speak". She's not notable. Period. We have guidelines that an individual needs to meet to warrant an article, she doesn't meet them. When she DOES meet them, by all means come back and repost an article about her. Just being on a national TV show doesn't warrant an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly what I mean, you are quite possibly wrong. Not an expert. Do you know a 45 from a 78? That's another thing why do admins talk about things they don't know about? Maybe stick to topics you do know? Tell me which artists won a golden buzzer and then won the show in reference? Also tell me why tv, entertainment, this show, other performers, and in particular young performers are being discriminated against? Younger performers deserve coverage and have rights. Momentum7 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure why it went to AfD to be honest, as it was (bar a couple of words) exactly the same as the version deleted by the first AfD and should simply hve been deleted G4, as it already had been once. Momentum7 is welcome to take this to DRV, but the second AfD was closed completely correctly and so I don't really see much point to it. Incidentally, though possibly irrelevantly, the article was also created by the sock of a banned user. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wikipedia has minimum notability requirements for musicians and performers, and just appearing on a TV show is not sufficient (nor is getting a golden buzzer - and yes, I do know what that is). Whether something is deleted is decided by consensus, and admins can not overrule a consensus. As for the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelina Green (2nd nomination), in my opinion it is correct. A consensus is based on the policy-based arguments made, not on the number of votes. Those who believed the article should be deleted made valid policy-based arguments (based on notability policy). Those who argued to keep it did not offer any policy-based reasoning whatsoever (and they appear to be single purpose editors with no other contribitions), and thus were correctly discounted. The closing admin judged the consensus correctly. If you disagree with the close and wish to contest it, you need to make a request at WP:Deletion review. Coming here and hurling insults around will not get that article undeleted, but it might get you sanctioned if you continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are not an admin. Sanction yourself? Momentum7 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is no consensus. The very definition of consensus is unanimous. Consensus is unanimous. That's not the case. You are incorrect Momentum7 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, he is an admin, and consensus does not have to be unanimous. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Here's the thing: you refer to "expertise", Momentum7, but what is relevant here is in fact knowledge of Wikipedia and how this specific web based encyclopedia works. That's what administrators (such as Boing! said Zebedee) have to demonstrate, and that is the only thing they should consider when acting in the capacity as administrators (such as when closing an AfD discussion). You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you are not quite clear on some important concepts, such as how consensus works ("consensus" is not synonymous with "unanimous" outside Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia it has a specific definition), or the fact that whether someone "deserves coverage" is never a consideration – Wikipedia can only take into account already existing coverage. Again, you are free to seek to overturn the decision at WP:DRV, but doing so without first understanding exactly which policies were involved in the closing will almost certainly mean that you won't be successful. --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is no consensus. The very definition of consensus is unanimous. Consensus is unanimous. That's not the case. You are incorrect Momentum7 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is not kindness which you feature prominently. Seeing that you have a PhD one would think you could be reasoned with. Explain to me how I can show you bias and you won't see it. Momentum7 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- And I won't be kind here. Drop the stick and take this to deletion review to have this looked at there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Have done so, requesting you to stay out of it since you seem to have piggybacked off a non-admin post. RiB, if deletion review is not conducted properly and users are more interested in intrigue, arguing without points, and not addressing biases and other topics expressed then this site is hopeless. Personal opinion, most of you appear to not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Momentum7 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks to me like there may have been some sockpuppetry going on in that AfD discussion, too. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblock appeal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am appealing the block[29] which I received for "repeatedly violating [my] interaction ban after warnings"
. The cited violations occurred while I was appealing and asking for clarification on the talk page of the administrator who imposed the IBAN.[30] In my appeal and clarification requests I had repeatedly asked that my IBAN be modified from a one-way IBAN to a two-way IBAN. In order to request this change it was necessary for me to discuss the other editor. The administrator repeatedly stated that the other editor was not responsible for my behavior, and that trying to convince them otherwise is not covered by WP:BANEX. I was not claiming that the other editor was responsible for my behavior; I was asking that my IBAN be modified to two-way because the other editor was also at fault (and due to the admin's procedural errors). The administrator did not state that it was improper to discuss the other editor in the context of this request; the administrator did not follow WP:ADMINACCT by answering my specific requests for clarification, instead the administrator repeatedly told me that the other editor was not responsible for my conduct, something I never claimed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC) copied from User talk:Kolya Butternut per request. — Wug·a·po·des 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn and unblock - I'm glad Wugs became an admin and respect them a lot but I've been watching this unfold and I think it was a pretty bad 1-way IBAN and a pretty bad block. I also think Yamla's unblock decline was rather unhelpful. The background is simple: a week or so ago KB was partially blocked from an article by bradv for partially reinstating a bold addition, violating 1RR. There was a long conversation with many editors on brad's talk page discussing what counts as a revert, etc. Specifico lobbied very hard on Brad's talk page for KB to be TBANed completely.Next, Specifico did the same thing: violate 1RR. This was pointed out to Specifico on his talk page and they were asked to self-revert. They didn't. Brad was pinged; the question was asked-by KB and others-why Specifico was being treated differently than KB. Specifico hasn't edited since this happened (May 10). Brad didn't partially block Specifico like he did KB. Then Wugs came in-who I think has not been involved before in this-and partially blocked Specifico from the article and unilaterally gave KB a 1-way IBAN against Specifico. KB went to Wugs' talk page and lobbied for it to be 2-way. Wugs blocked KB (full block) for that, saying it's a violation of the 1-way IBAN (it's not). Yamla declined KB's unblock request because Yamla didn't think the chance of success was high enough (whatever that means). I think every single admin action in this little story I've described was improper. What should have happened is simple: KB should have been given a chance to self revert before being partially blocked. Specifico should have been treated the same by brad as KB was and should have been pblocked also, without a bunch of editors claiming hypocrisy for a week. No IBAN was necessary at all, and asking for it to be 2-way on the issuing admin's talk page is not a violation of the 1-way; BANEX is clear about appeals. So I think KB should be unblocked and the IBAN rescinded. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- The background is not simple and leaves out the previous month of interactions I've seen and tried to mediate. I've been following this issue for a month at this point, starting with this discussion on Kolya's talk page where I declined to block her for 1RR violations per AGF. I was then pinged by SPECIFICO about a week later in that post's subsection, and in response I left this message on SPECIFICO's talk page to try and deescalate the situation. A week ago Kolya pinged me to this discussion where, once I saw it, I topic banned SPECIFICO for the violations noted. Editor's didn't claim hypocrisy for a week, it was 2 days: Kolya pinged me 10 May 2020 and I issued a topic ban 12 May 2020 when I returned to activity. Given what went on in that thread and the month long effort I've spent trying to deescalate their interpersonal feud, I gave Kolya an IBAN. I disagree that lobbying for sanctions against the editor you are banned from interacting with is within the bounds of WP:BANEX since our guide to appeals says Do not complain about other people, such as editors you may have been in a conflict with, or the blocking administrator. Disagreements with others should be addressed through dispute resolution after you are unblocked, but your unblock request is not the place for this and I said that to Kolya at least three times here, here, and here and linked her to that guide which she later quoted from. — Wug·a·po·des 20:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn per Levivich. I was involved in the previous discussions and do not find it helpful when the standards are not uniformly enforced. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn per Levivich and trout to all admins involved. 1-way IBANs are pointless. Two way or no way.--v/r - TP 17:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into the further history of this, but must point out that lobbying for the other editor to also have an interaction ban clearly violates WP:IBAN, which says, "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: [...] make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly", and was linked in the initial edit on the plaintiff's talk page informing them of the ban, so the statement at User talk:Kolya Butternut saying, "I was not given a blanket instruction not to discuss the other editor's conduct, and I was not told not to ask for a ban on the other editor" is incorrect, as is Levivich's, "(it's not)". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with that interpretation. Asking the issuing admin to issue a 2-way IBAN instead of a 1-way IBAN is a form of appeal. It would be nonsensical to treat this as a violation of the 1-way IBAN. If we treated it as such, then nobody subject to a 1-way IBAN could ever request that it be turned into a 2-way IBAN. This of course isn't how it works here. There are many instances, for example, of someone asking for a 2-way to be turned into a 1-way, and this is not considered a violation of the 2-way. BANEX is clear that appeals of sanctions do not violate the sanction. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see what interpretation is needed here. The banning policy says what I said it says very clearly. This editor is perfectly entitled to ask questions about their own ban, but asking for the other editor to be banned is obviously a violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, interpretation isn't needed because asking to change a 1-way ban that you have with another editor to a 2-way ban is discussing the ban itself and is an attempt to appeal the ban as it is being enforced. Nihlus 20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see what interpretation is needed here. The banning policy says what I said it says very clearly. This editor is perfectly entitled to ask questions about their own ban, but asking for the other editor to be banned is obviously a violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with that interpretation. Asking the issuing admin to issue a 2-way IBAN instead of a 1-way IBAN is a form of appeal. It would be nonsensical to treat this as a violation of the 1-way IBAN. If we treated it as such, then nobody subject to a 1-way IBAN could ever request that it be turned into a 2-way IBAN. This of course isn't how it works here. There are many instances, for example, of someone asking for a 2-way to be turned into a 1-way, and this is not considered a violation of the 2-way. BANEX is clear that appeals of sanctions do not violate the sanction. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn and unblock looks like a no brainer. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - There seems to be some misrepresentation above. It is not true that Kolya merely went to Wugapodes to ask about the iban or to request turning it into a 2-way iban. The first comment didn't even mention the iban, but said [of the person Kolya has an iban regarding]: "his comments on his talk page are evidence of incivility in the form of civil POV-pushing, particularly WP:CIVILITY 2.(d) lying." Wugapodes then explained that these messages could be an iban violation and advised dropping the stick. No sticks were dropped, and so it escalated. I'm not weighing in one way or the other as to whether a block was merited or whether the iban should be there or whether it should be 2-way. I'm only commenting because to read this section you'd get a different idea of what happened than if you look at the section on Wugapodes' talk page. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- At User talk:Wugapodes#Interaction ban, KB started with
According to IBAN I cannot comment on SPECIFICO, but I assume I am permitted to do so in the context of discussing or appealing my IBAN, correct?
, to which Wugs replied,You are correct. Per WP:BANEX, you may comment on SPECIFICO to the extent that it is necessary to appeal or clarify the ban itself.
Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)- The operative words being
to the extent that it is necessary to appeal or clarify the ban itself.
— Wug·a·po·des 20:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- The operative words being
- At User talk:Wugapodes#Interaction ban, KB started with
- Overturn and unblock - I'd propose unblocking now, since this will all eventually become moot if the block expires. Unblock because an interaction ban should not remove of the right to seek relief from actions taken by the other editor, so long as such requests are made in good faith. Given the time frame, I am inclined to see the talk page comments in that light, even those not directly seeking a change of the IBAN. Overturn, because 1-way interaction bans are never justified. I haven't investigated sufficiently to have a position on whether no interaction ban, a two way interaction ban, or a full ban would be most appropriate. Prodego talk 18:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sanctioning admin note Since this has also come to include a discussion on the IBAN itself, I want to note that the conduct I sanctioned Kolya for is not an isolated incident but a long term pattern. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#Personal_attacks SchroCat advised her to not insult other editors, and to report concerns at the appropriate venue; she doubled down and made clear she was trying to carry on a personal rather than content dispute with Betty Logan. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#WP:HOUND Flyer22 Reborn raised concerns with multiple diffs that Kolya was wikihounding them, to which Cullen328 said
I advise you to take that editor's talk page off your watchlist. That would be to your benefit, in my opinion, since you are clearly displaying some hounding tendencies.
This is not a new pattern, and it is clear to me that neither Kolya's interactions with SPECIFICO nor the editing environment at Joe Biden would improve without intervention. Concerns about this pattern of behavior have been raised multiple times, by multiple editors, and about multiple targets, so in considering the IBAN, I suggest editors look at Kolya's pattern of conduct over the last few months and consider whether she will engage collaboratively without it. — Wug·a·po·des 20:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC) - Overturn and unblock - A 1-way IBAN for an alleged long term pattern of attacks is an odd way of handling things. 1-way IBANs are also never a good idea, as demonstrated here. Finally, blocking someone trying to discuss and appeal their IBAN is unconscionable. Nihlus 20:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uninvolved admin, or advice
Hi all. A minor edit war has occurred over this article, where Linn C Doyle (talk · contribs) and I have disagreed over a content addition. I'm looking for an uninvolved administrator to handle the issue (or to give advice on how to proceed), since I am the article's creator. A third opinion has been provided here, but his/her recommendation was not accepted by Linn C Doyle. Linn C Doyle's latest reversion was accompanied by this this comment, but I don't feel comfortable intervening further. Should this conflict be handled via page protection, to force talk-page discussion? Or should additional opinions be invited? Or discussed at greater length elsewhere? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- As you got a third opinion on the talk page that agreed the content should not be reinstated, and Linn C Doyle continued to revert it into the article, I have blocked her from editing the article for two weeks. Number 57 20:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleting JavaScript pages
Hello, could an admin please kindly delete the following pages under CSD U1 User:Krett12/common.js User:Krett12/sandbox.js , as CSD templates may not be applied to JavaScript pages. Thanks. Krett12 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)