Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	24	0	25
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	65	0	65
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

• 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 202 sockpuppet investigations
• 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 53 requests for RD1 redaction
• 58 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 15 requested closures
• 109 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 28 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8186 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ras Sedr massacre 2024-08-03 04:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Ivory messagebox/styles.css 2024-08-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4463 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sodhi 2024-08-02 17:15 2024-09-02 17:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing Anachronist Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk 2024-08-01 21:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by LTA Jauerback Lin Yu-ting 2024-08-01 20:47 2024-08-11 20:47 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Real Malabar FC 2024-08-01 20:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C Silver Synth 2024-08-01 19:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Imane Khelif 2024-08-01 17:14 2024-09-01 17:14 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) 2024-08-01 14:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Isabelle Belato Beit Jala 2024-08-01 11:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ismail al-Ghoul 2024-08-01 03:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier 2024-07-31 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Inprogress 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Cricket squad2 player 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Spike (missile) 2024-07-31 16:03 2024-08-07 16:03 edit,move WP:ARBPIA4 temporary enforcement Swatjester Kefas Brand (actor) 2024-07-31 15:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bishonen Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-07-31 12:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page as currently on main page; it's been moved regularly over the last couple of days Schwede66 Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Death of Paul Kessler 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Azzam Pasha quotation 2024-07-31 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War 2024-07-31 01:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 80th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-31 01:11 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Megagle 2024-07-31 00:56 2026-07-31 00:56 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic 2024-07-30 21:20 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Haret Hreik airstrike 2024-07-30 19:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Talk:Sister location circus fox 2024-07-30 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Fouad Shuker 2024-07-30 19:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Israeli attack on Beirut 2024-07-30 19:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Jhanak 2024-07-30 16:56 indefinite move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Bat Ayin 2024-07-30 15:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli

Self-requesting close review

I recently closed Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh#RfC_about_the_description_of_the_governance_of_this_university as "no consensus". ElKevbo has questioned this close on my talk page, essentially arguing that I did not properly accept the expert nature of the sources he proposed as definitively settling the RfC question. I had weighted the arguments in favor of "public" as somewhat more persuasive than those for "state supported" but there was a clear plurality for "state supported" and I felt dismissing those !votes would amount to a supervote. I have explained this but ElKevbo still remains unsatisfied with my responses. Posting here to open this to wider review. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a fan of these self-requested close reviews. If you do not have the faith in your own judgment to discuss and defend your rationales, you should not be closing discussions. Just because someone challenges and argues with your close does not mean you need to go running for a review. A close review is not the same thing as a review about your judgment in a close, or if a participant is in the right or wrong for being unsatisfied with your close, it is a review as to whether the close was objectively in the wrong due to some obvious factors that the closer missed. If Kevbo has such an argument, he can bring it to us, but simply disagreeing with you is not grounds to do so, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this here. I'll bite, but for future reference, you don't need to come here and eat up our time simply because an involved user disagrees. That's not a grave outcome, that's par for the course. Defend your closes and stand behind them, or don't make them. If a user really wants to make a close challenge, they can do that, or they can simply decide to cut their losses. Don't go out of your way to challenge your own closes. Regarding the close, I count votes 7 for "state-related", 5 for "neither" or "other", and 4 for "public". It's true, Kevbo provided a strong source-based argument, and a closer should assign greater weight based on it. Even giving full acknowledgement to the sources provided, it did little to convince the community, and it was less popular than even a new approach of simply including no descriptor at all rather than one supplanted by all these sources. A closer is to heavily weigh policy-based arguments, and the availability of sources is literally one of our core policies. You should have given significant weight to the user who based their argument from sources. That being said, the support for "public" was so low that doesn't make a difference. Even with such a strong, source-based argument, it was still the least-popular option. Maybe if views were split, 7-8 or 6-9, I could justify a reading of consensus in favor of the argument that has the sources on its side. But we're talking 4-11, an overwhelming consensus against "public", and that's in spite of a large number of sources. So given that, it's disingenuous to suggest that a closer should read a minority consensus in spite of overwhelming community opposition. Close wasn't wrong, and the challenge doesn't even have much credibility. Please learn from this, explain your assessment and thought process with closes if challenged but don't automatically bring them up for review. You need to not back down and immediately succumb to a drama board timesink if someone disagrees with your judgment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all I agree this is a reasonable close. I do want to strongly disagree with Swarm here on the "strength of argument" thing. If 100s of sources say that George Washington had wooden teeth, we don't write that he does if it's not true and reliable sources that address the debate all agree it's not true. In the same way, we don't claim Jesus's birthday is December 25th even though the vast majority of sources may claim that. In this case it isn't a public school and I believe that every reliable source which does more than just give it a label (and so actually discusses the issue) acknowledges that. I think going with "state-related" would have been the correct close (because that's indisputably correct), but NC is within discretion. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your endorsement of the close, Swarm. It might have been enlightening to read the prior discussion with EKB I had been having for multiple days on my user talk. It was handily linked for your convenience in the same post above where the close was linked. I have been closing discussions for years and I have never backed down from explaining the reasons behind the close to anyone who asks. If you had looked at that page, there was also a prominent link to a log of closes I maintain, and please tell me, how many of those have I "automatically" sought review of? The one and only reason I sought review to "eat up your time" was because EKB went to that article and was unsatisfied with the response and then created an RfC and was unsatisfied with that response and then went to my talk page and I could see they were clearly unsatisfied with my response there. There was a high likelihood that there was going to be some further discussion somewhere that would "eat up time" and why not bring it to the notice board that is actually designated by the closing policy as the venue for review? But, hey, what's a little admin condescension among experienced editors? That's clearly what we're all here to provide. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if "100s of sources say that George Washington had wooden teeth" and a majority of participants support including that, then we should include it. Hopefully that never happens, but there will be cases where the closer believes the majority to be "wrong" but so long as they make policy-based arguments, the closer may not substitute their own judgment over that of the participants (WP:SUPERVOTE). (Of course various things need to be considered, like if contradictory evidence is presented late in the game, whether the other side simply hasn't had a chance to review it or they have reviewed and rejected it.) If you believe the result to be so hopelessly wrong that you cannot in good conscience close it in that direction, then you should participate in the discussion instead of closing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In this case at least, the majority went with the true thing rather than the "popularly said, but wrong" thing. My point would be that strength of argument isn't by a count of sources, but by the sources which actually address the issue. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, @Hobit:, it's pretty damn petty and annoying that you're even wasting our time with this line of argumentation. When we speak of sources and verifiability, it should go without saying that we're referring to reliable sources. You've presented a disingenuous straw man argument invoking a situation in which unreliable sources are stating a belief of popular folklore, and suggesting that I am saying that I would "count sources" in this situation. Give me a fucking break, you know damn well that isn't an analog to this situation, nor am I saying unreliable sources should be weighted to numerical count. Policy gets weighted over personal opinion, and an argument supported by reliable sources gets weighted over an argument based on a personal view, that's how this works, that's what I'm saying, and frankly it's lame that you're making me repeat this because of some bizarre pedantry that you want to force me into an argument or some thought experiment over. Knock it off. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Popularly said [by virtually all of the published experts] but wrong [according to some Wikipedia editors]" would be a much more honest and accurate assessment of the situation. It's rare that we have such an alignment of high quality, published sources that are seeking to answer the exact same question - how do we best summarize the governance of this institution? - as we are trying to answer and it's extremely frustrating that many Wikipedia editors are substituting their own judgment for those of the experts'. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, I'm sorry you see it as a waste. My argument is that while we've got sources, like Newsweek, that label everything as "public" or "private", we don't have that constraint. Most all of the press that addresses the issue sticks with "state-related" when it matters [1],[2]. It calls itself a "public-private hybrid" [3]. From our article "...the university remains a private entity, operating under its nonprofit corporate charter, governed by its independent Board of Trustees, and with its assets under its own ownership and control". [4]. To say it is a "public" school is, at best, a gross oversimplification. At worst, it's just wrong. We have the word "public" at other schools linking to Public university, but here it links to Commonwealth System of Higher Education. So yeah, I firmly believe that the strength of argument and numbers are on the "state-related" side. My choice of analogies were poor. I was trying to find examples of "commonly said in reliable sources but wrong". I probably should have either found better analogies or just dropped it. Hobit (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily problematic that you (a) cite Newsweek as the sole example of sources that use the "public" label when virtually all of the experts (e.g., Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, National Center for Education Statistics) use that label and (b) can cite only publications written by the subject to support the "state-related" label. It's incredibly frustrating that you and others persist in ignoring the vast number of sources, many written by experts, to focus almost exclusively on the small number of sources written by the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I said ..we've got sources, like Newsweek, that label everything as "public" or "private"... That includes both the Carnegie Classifications (which are the gold standard here) and the NCES. I used Newsweek as the example because more folks would be aware of it. Realizing this probably belongs on a talk page, I stick it out here a bit longer and check to be sure we are on the same page about what the underlying disagreement is. I think we agree that "state-related" is accurate. Do we agree that it is a more precise description than either "public" or "private"? I *think* the issue is simply if we use the fairly imprecise term "public" or the better understood, but less precise term "public" in the lede. Do you agree with all that? And for the record, I do think that picking either just "public" or "private" is misleading, though I agree many very good sources uses exactly those terms (usually public, much more rarely private) to describe these schools. Also wiki-linking "public" in the lede to a different article than the vast majority of other public schools is a troublesome WP:SURPRISE. But all that (in small font) I don't think we'll agree on. I'm mainly curious if we are on the same page for the other stuff. Feel free to continue this discussion somewhere (talk page of the article, my talk page, your talk page) if you wish. Just leave a link here to wherever that is. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors substituting their own judgment over that employed by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources is a problem. The question that should be answered is not "How would I label this institution?" but "How do the sources label this institution?" And the answer to that is overwhelmingly clear. We don't allow editors to substitute their own preferences and judgments over those used in the sources we cite but that's exactly what is happening here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry we can't seem to have a successful discussion--I feel that you are just repeating the same things and not engaging, perhaps you feel the same. You certainly didn't address my points, and I feel I've at least tried to address yours, but maybe I've not succeeded. I think we ended up in the wrong place with this article (perhaps the only significant point here which we agree on), but frankly it's a minor point in the scope of the entire encyclopedia and I just don't see a way forward. I wish we could have found something everyone was happy with. Hobit (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the close is reasonable, and that this is a fuzzy question where an atypical arrangement makes it difficult to classify the topic according to the categories most commonly used in the field. I strongly disagree with User:Swarm's opinion on seeking review of the close. Any editor should always be comfortable asking for a second opinion here on their closure of a discussion. BD2412 T 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn is, of course, welcome to ask others to review the close. However, if I thought the close were so flawed as to warrant a review by others then I would have asked for one. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's never wrong to request feedback, outside opinions, or review of one's actions. It's when we believe that our actions are beyond review that we are treading dangerous ground. And if one's actions are being questioned, it's right to ask for a review here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Appealing my topic ban

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Appealing my topic ban

 – ​— Newslinger talk 04:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Appealing for my topic ban while reporting PatCheng/PCPP/STSC/LucasGeorge being socket puppet, and Bloodofox/HorseEyeJack being POV editing

A. The AE report against me was launched by PatCheng who seems to be socket puppet accounts of User PCPP and User STSC circumventing topic bans

1. PatCheng was active before summer 2006, turned less active in summer 2006 and stopped editing in Sep 2006. But in Jun 2019 PatCheng suddenly showing up reporting me in an ANI case and an AE case after failing in the ANI case, while PCPP created the account in Jun 2006, made first edit in Nov 2006 and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Feb 2011. The editing interests of PatCheng in 2006 and PCPP in 2007 and later are extremely similar. Both editors focused extensively on video games and popular culture, and on Falun Gong and the Epoch Times (these 2 articles are in both editors' top 5 editing pages). Both accounts seemed to edit from the same POV on topics related to China.

2. PatCheng and PCPP edited Template:Blizzard Entertainment: PatCheng's:4 April 2006, 4 Apr 2006, and 23 Mar 2006‎ and PCPP's edits:4 Aug 2007‎‎, 22 Mar 2007, and 14 Mar 2007

3. PCPP edited Template:Command & Conquer series: 14 Feb 2008, 14 Feb 2008 PatCheng edited Template:Command & Conquer: 2006-03-21, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-15, 2006-03-14

It's very strange that two unconnected accounts would edit the same video games' template pages, AND that they would also both primary focus on editing Falun Gong/Epoch Times pages (exhibiting the same POV), AND that one account was created when the other stopped editing. Statistically, the chance this is a coincidence is very low.

4. on 28 Jun 2009, Simonm223's message to PCPP about editing FLG article, AND PCPP's message to Simonm223 on editing FLG article, and on 16 Jan 2010 PCPP reverted Falun Gong article to the state that Simonm223 edited. Before PCPP’s ban in 2011, he worked with user Simonm223 on FLG topic.

PatCheng's message to Simonm223 about the FLG related article ET. PatCheng was the first user who posted the NBC reports against ET on August 20 the same day when NBC released the report. On the same day, PatCheng notified user Simonm223 who subsequently went to the ET page and did many questionable editing after PatCheng's notice. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 2 As there isn't any record that PatCheng communicated with Simonm223 before, suppose PatCheng is unrelated to PCPP (who had worked with Simonm223 before), how could PatCheng inform Simonm223 in editing FLG topic after PatCheng’s return in 2019 just re-starting his editing on Epoch Times?

5 STSC created his account in Jul 2006 and was inactive - edited 125 times before 2011. PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011. In 2011 STSC turned to be quite active - edited 1535 times in 2011 alone and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Apr 2016 The account LucasGeorge was in Jan 2012 after PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011, turned to be active in June 2016 - 2 months after STSC was topic banned. Recently LucasGeorge removed reliable sources related to CBC reports from ET article in the same way PatCheng did before he was topic banned using undue weight as the rationale.

Two of PCPP’s top 10 edited pages are Kilgour–Matas report and Criticism of Confucius Institutes while among LucasGeorge’s 10 edited articles, there are two very related ones to PCPP’s two: Organ transplantation in China, and Confucius Institute.

6. PCPP was topic banned in 2011 from Falun Gong and so was STSC in 2016. Both violated the ban multiple times. 3 examples for PCPP: User_talk:PCPP#January_2012, User_talk:PCPP#Are_you_deliberately_courting_another_ban? and User_talk:PCPP#July_2016. 2 examples for STSC: STSC was warned for violating the topic ban in June 2016, and STSC was warned again in July 2016 since at that time on PCPP's talk page, STSC attempted to help PCPP get unblocked by framing an admin as being involved. BTW, as PatCheng and PCPP worked as Simonm223 (mentioned in point 4), STSC also had communication with Simonm223. STSC left a message to Simonm223.

B. Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox were conducting POV editing in Falun Gong article

I was trying to address the issue Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox brought the article before being reported by PatCheng. Please allow me to go over the context of all related edits this year, as it was not explored by the admins reviewing the complaints from PatCheng.

1. In mid-May 2020, Bloodofox did a major change without prior discussion to the lead section of the Falun Gong article, which had been stable for over 1 year and has been under Discretionary Sanctions for many years. Multiple users（excluding me）complained the edit on the talk page. By the beginning of June, I notice that Bloodofox's edits were problematic. One main issue was that Bloodofox had misrepresented his sources. The following lines were added into the lead section of the article. a) “The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad...” b) "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun…" but these lines were not supported by any of the 6 sources provided. C). Also, the NYT source and NBC source were further misrepresented by Bloodofox. [5].

2. From June 3 to 5, I tried to address the issue by discussing and editing in good faith: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#The_Last_Paragraph_of_the_Lead_Section, Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right". In my edits, I cited the following reliable sources that addressed Bloodofox's misrepresentation issue a) and b), and then expanded the content.

a. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Behind-the-blitz-Falun-Gong-practitioners-spend-14966684.php "Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong"

b. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CULTURE-AND-RELIGION-Dissident-media-linked-to-2587555.php

c. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690

d. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/

My edits did not touch contents supported by Bloodofox's sources, but modified their unsourced lines into a line like “Falun Gong practitioners formed performing arts company Shen Yun and Epoch Times”, based on the new sources. I said to User:Horse Eye Jack on the talk page that he is welcome to add any RS supported contents. Please note WP:NOR should be followed. But User:Horse Eye Jack kept reverting without reasonable grounds and multiple reliable sources in my edits were deleted. Here are Horse Eye Jack’s reverts from June 3 to 5: [6] [7] [8] and Bloodofox's revert on June 5: [9]

Meanwhile, Horse Eye Jack accused me of having COI and being a SPA, he then reported me in an ANER case (failed). I responded by providing real-life examples of what COI would look like (discerning myself from COI persons). But Horse Eye Jack misconstrued my words as attacking him.

3. On June 10, I did two edits:

a. [10] As per the discussion Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right", at the same time, I fixed the issue that NBC was used twice for the same line.

b. [11] with a summary stated that ”It was not reasonable to put the info of overseas FLG follower groups ahead of the "Origins" section. I am moving it to the section called "Falun Gong outside China".

For the edit b, my concern was that the re-organization was undue, as it places the fringe aspect of overseas Falun Gong organizations in the very beginning, obscuring the introduction of the group. (My concern was later addressed, as Bloodofox's problematic reorganization was substantially undone by another user, without disagreements from the community). Despite my reasonable objection, my edit was still reverted by Bloodofox [12] without giving any explanation, which I felt was ungrounded and disruptive.

After Bloodofox reverted my edit b, Horse Eye Jack then reverted my edit a: [13] ignoring the consensus on the talk page 5 days ago, which had agreed to specify that it was the NYT and NBC that had reported the Epoch Times of associating with right-wing politics.

Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack’s reverts were unjustified. At that point, feeling that there were bully users who wouldn't allow any constructive edits that addressed the disruptive WP:OR issue, I restored the article to the state prior to Bloodofox’s major edit in May in the following day: [14] with a summary stating "the page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relatively stable article in May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been not stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May. "

C. One very possible reason that I was reported by POV editor PatCheng three times

I have never met PatCheng in Wikipedia editing, nor had any conflict with PatCheng, yet I was reported by PatCheng three times (one ANI case and two AE cases). Esp. last year PatCheng showed up first reporting me after 13 years’ retirement was very surprising. I notice POV editor STSC (Falun Gong topic banned in Apr 2016) seemed to be the connection between PatCheng and me. PatCheng's reports against me seem to be revenge in response to my 3RR report against STSC.

WP:ARBFLG shows other two anti Falun Gong activists were topic banned in 2007 as attempting "to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy on FLG related articles. I fully agree with the following Wikipedia principles that were applied in WP:ARBFLG:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.
• Neutral point of view: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
• Point of view editing: Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site.

I respect human rights and paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article Zhang Jianhong (a poet and human rights defender who died of CCP's human rights abuse). and completed the creation of the article Xu Pei (a poet and human rights defender in Germany) this May. Both figures are human rights defenders. The China's Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong turned Falun Gong an international human rights issue and FG related pages often were not following WP:5P2 mainly because there were anti FG activists who often promoted their narrative in their POV editing while disregarding Wikipedia policies and WP:ARBFLG. Thus, aside from my interest in refrigeration engineering related articles, FLG became my one focus.

In 2015/2016, I tried to prevent STSC's POV editing in FLG topic. STSC warned me six times and reported me for 3RR violation but he was the one violated 3RR, not me. So I reported STSC for 3RR as well. While in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse to PatCheng’s AE report, I had refuted PatCheng’s fake accusations one by one, one of PatCheng’s accusation in his 3 reports against me saying “launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him” looks esp. unusual. Reporting STSC’s 3RR violation is not an offence by any mean. An unrelated user to STSC is unlikely to mention this in AE reports. Aside the evidence in section A, This also indicates that PatCheng and STSC seem to be related.

D. PatCheng's POV edits spread in Wikipedia Falun Gong topic

After to the Epoch Times article on Aug 20, 2019, when it was just released, a lot of other RS supported contents in the ET article that were not in line with the view from PatCheng and the like-minded POV users were censored and removed - one example: a previous edit from one reviewer on PatCheng's AE report against me. PatCheng even removed content from a CBC report by falsely claiming the quoted as Original Research. Some users or even admins could have been misled by the POV article.

It was Bloodofox who promoted the NBC report that PatCheng first introduced to Wikipedia in August 2019 to Falun Gong related articles in May 2020 and June 2010. In the process, WP:OR contents without the support of NBC or any sources were added. It is evident that RS-supported views sympathetic to the victims of the persecution were censored, but info accusing FLG were stated as facts rather than NPOV descriptions that include who the accusers were. Although on articles under Discretionary Sanctions Bloodofox conducted major edits that violated WP:V and WP:NOR many times, there was one involved user often showed up for reverting and warning other users who tried to address Bloodofox's damages to the articles. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 1. The reverting of my 7th edit and the subsequent warning against me were in the same pattern.

I believe that both criticizing views and praising views should be fairly and proportionally represented without bias in an article. For any sourced views not failing WP:RS and WP:Due, I would have no problem to see them being posted. But for contents failing WP:V or WP:NOR, I believe they should be corrected. All my this year's 7 edits in the Falun Gong article reflected WP:NPOV spirit. POV editors PatCheng/STSC, Horse Eye Jack, and Bloodofox seem to reject any RS supported views that were different from their POV. Thus I became a barrier for anti-FLG POV editors. It seems to be because of PatCheng's pro-CCP POV and my effort to address POV edits, that he kept attempting to get me banned since last year.

In his AE report, PatCheng distorted my words for framing me being personal attack. The evidence presented against me did not show evidence of policy violations, aspersion-casting, or disruptive editing, as claimed. Please review my evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse, since the admins reviewing the complaint did not appear to carefully review my evidence before deciding to ban me.

In summary, it was Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack who were engaged in disruptive POV editing, and I only tried to correct those questionable WP:OR content. It was an involved user's erroneous revert & warning seems to be made use of by the Falun Gong topic banned PCPP/STSC’s sock puppet user. As such, PatCheng's AE report against me should be considered as being invalid and the topic ban enforeced on me should be canceled.

For any valid criticism, I will improve. I note that English is not my native language, which sometimes might have made my discussion hard to understand. I will try to improve in this area. I will continue consult with other editors first before making significant content change. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 27 July 2020

Response to the users who have commented

Thanks Newslinger for notifying those users who were reported and for moving the appealing/reporting from ANI to AN. This is my first time for launching a case here. Sorry for being not familiar with some rules for posting on ANI/AN.

Thanks so much to Pudeo for reading most part of the section A and launching the WP:SI case to investigate PatCheng/PCPP. I appreciate you spent time investigating and finding a lot new evidence that shows PatCheng and PCPP are sock puppet.

Many users commented that the post was too long to read. I acknowledge, yes, it is too long. It seems even Pudeo did not finish reading the first section. In the end part of section A more evidence on STSC and LucasGeorge were provided, and the end part of section C addressed the connection between STSC and PatCheng as well. If it is possible, i hope you can also include this part in the SI case.

My point in appealing was clear:

1. I was wrongfully reported in an AE case by a user who seems to be sock puppet of a topic banned user PCPP.

2. All my 7 edits on the Falun Gong articles before being reported were explained in detail one by one in section B. Many users commented that i did not explain my own edits. This is simply not true. It seems that nobody even finished reading the first section, let alone about section B and other sections.

3. All the accusations from PatCheng and others were refuted one by one with detailed evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse. Again, this was too long, nobody would care to read it through.

I believe in simplicity and had no desire to write a long appeal if I could make it short in any way. Aside from my mastery of the language is not so adequate for making a concise and effective case, the matter that PatCheng's plot to report and get me banned ran deep in many years involving multiple possible sock puppets.

Before this year's AE report, I was following NPOV spirit for addressing WP:OR content brought in by Bloodofox. I am innocent to the accusations of being disruptive and casting aversion. I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. I did not cast any aversion here or anywhere. My topic ban was a huge mistake, so i intend to appeal in the hope that the existing mechanism in Wikipedia would correct mistakes. I worked for a few weeks in order to prepare the detailed appealing post that includes numerous evidence.

In reality, as nobody wants to read a long post, CaptainEek's advice to withdraw makes sense to me. I will consider to withdraw the appeal. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek:: can you teach me how to withdraw the appeal? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 20:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just say here that you want to withdraw it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

!voting unban of Marvin 2009

Link to Arbitration Enforcement Request, which was June 30th

Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is extremely lengthy and convoluted. This looks more like an indictment against other editors than an appeal of one's own sanctions. One must address one's own prior editing, show examples of constructive editing in other areas, and explain how they will edit constructively in the area applicable to the restrictions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Opposeper Newslinger --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am gravely concerned that this appeal looks like a massive casting of aspersions, which was a problem for which user was TBANned. The criticisms in the DS discussion continue to hold true in this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. This appeal does not adequately address any of the issues (disruptive editing in the Falun Gong topic area) that led to Marvin 2009 being topic banned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 § Marvin 2009. Appeals need to focus on the appellant's own behavior, not that of other editors. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've notified LucasGeorge, Bloodofox, and Horse Eye Jack using {{AN-notice}}, as required by the noticeboard instructions. The other editors are either inactive or topic banned. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. When someone writes a 7000-word appeal about how everyone else was the problem, the author was usually the real problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• OP: I highly suggest you withdraw this request, and write a far more concise version that deals with your editing, not that of other people. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  This is good advice for the next appeal, but I highly recommend waiting at least six months before appealing again, and using the time to make constructive contributions in other topic areas. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I second Newslinger, you should probably wait six months, this appeal has left the community with a bad taste in its mouth. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. This mind-numbing TLDR opus fails to explain why this editor should have their topic ban lifted and instead goes back 14 years to argue that six other editors are bad actors. I believe that this is the worst appeal I have ever read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone above (and possibly below). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It was pointed out in the AE thread that led to the topic ban that PatCheng returned from a 13 year hiatus to file a report on Marvin on ANI, and this was acknowledged in the uninvolved admin comments. As a result, PatCheng was also topic-banned. However, Marvin's own conduct was also independently found to be problematic, so focusing on that only is unlikely to make the appeal successful. I don't think there's much evidence for connecting any other accounts than PatCheng and PCPP (Editor Interaction Tool). Both accounts have a relatively low edit count (~3,000), but besides a lot of Chinese politics related articles they have also intersection in videogames like PC PowerPlay, Template:Handheld game consoles, Xbox 360 technical problems, MapleStory, Unreal (1998 video game), Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, which is highly suspicious. So it is possible that there is one editor who has FLG topic bans on multiple accounts, and PatCheng edited in violation of one. But again, unclean hands from him is probably not enough to exonerate Marvin 2009, although if he really is PCPP, he made 1 ANI and 2 AE reports in violation of his topic ban. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I opened a SPI for the connection between PatCheng and PCPP which is the right place to process it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng. --Pudeo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the request needs to be made more concise and it needs to focus on your behaviour, not other people's. Whether other people were acting appropriately has little or nothing to do with whether you were. Hut 8.5 07:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I strongly stand by my assertion that this account has COI issues and they were in fact a SPA even if they later tried to diversify their editing pattern in an attempt to shake the label. There are also a half dozen major inaccuracies and at least a dozen minor inaccuracies in their description of whats been happening on FG related pages but I think thats besides the point, this is a diatribe against those this FG account feels has wronged them not a legitimate request to lift a topic ban. We regularly see this sort of thing from the little pinks so its not super surprising to see it from the other side. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is possibly the worst unblock request I've ever seen, at least in the category >500 words. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:TLDR and what everybody else wrote above in the !vote section. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a textbook example of how to NOT get your appeal approved. Everyone else is not the issue, you need to review your own behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A screed against others, not a legitimate appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from the implementing administrator I was never notified of this thread which seems odd. Further, the community should keep in mind that I have had to implement additional editing restriction on Falun Gong to try to stop the continual edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I overlooked notifying you, because you weren't mentioned in the appeal at all. Apologies. — Newslinger talk 19:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, due to WP:NOTTHEM violation. Guy (help!) 21:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Marvin 2009 keeps abusing the sectioning/subsectioning feature by placing every post he makes in a separate subsection. This clutters the TOC and gives his posts - especially the section titles -- undue prominence. I have corrected this twice, once at ANI and once here. Could an admin please ask him to stop this behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Willy on Wheels

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

---

User:Willy on Wheels may look like the user page of a banned vandal at first sight, but looking at the contribs this user is not in fact the banned vandal known as User:Willy on wheels~enwiki. Can an admin delete (or at least blank) the user page please? This account was registered as a joke, the creator claims not to be User:Willy on wheels~enwiki, and there is no real evidence or an SPI showing that these two users are the same person. 92.26.50.0 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Their contributions at de-Wiki look like standard WoW crap. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, no. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Brian McNeil

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

I heard this evening from Bastique on Facebook that Brian McNeil has died of COVID-19. He was active more on WikiNews (sysop) and Commons, but a lot of us here knew him on Wiki and via social media. Brian was a thoroughly decent man. Guy (help!) 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Improper re-listing of MfD nomination

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

---

I opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020: Oppose CBan at AN on 20 July. By seven days later, it had attracted substantial discussion, including 20 additional bolded !votes. The raw count of the bolded votes was 12 delete, 4 Keep and blank, 3 Keep, and 1 Neutral. To my eye, that's a clear consensus to delete. And yet, despite this, an editor relisted it "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus."

I feel that the re-listing was improper, as a clear consensus had already been generated, and there was no need for additional comments in order for a consensus to be found. Since the re-listing was done by a non-administrator -- an editor who has only been here for 5 months [15] -- I would like an administrator to take a look and decide if the relisting was justified or not, and close the discussion if a consensus is found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In notifying the re-listing editor, I came across these discussion on their talk page: [16] and "Please stop relisting". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: On their talk page, under your notice, I have advised them to stay out of administrative areas. I also suggest mentorship for them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not see a clear consensus. The discussion is indeed leaning delete and likely will be closed as delete, but I would not say relisting is a policy violation. It a possible outcome of the first phase of discussion. Note also please that of many pages in the nomination only the first one has been tagged for MfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I agree that this not a NAC business.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Concerning only the first page: that is indeed the case. I could not find instructions for bundling nominations for MfD. As I said in the discussion, anyone who knows how to do it is free to tag the other files, or tell me how to do it, but I think it's clear that all participants understand that all the files listed are under discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the policy is not so much for the participants of the discussion, but for those who has pages on the watchlist, to make them aware that they are nominated. In this case, the chances are very small that someone follows just one or a few pages, but still non-zero, and if I were a closing admin I would not know what to do with these nominations. People use scripts to mass-nominate the articles, but for this number it is probably easier to copy the same template to every page manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried that, the problem being that the rendered template then references a non-existence MfD page, and i can't see anywhere in the template doc where the correct page can be inserted. Nevertheless, I guess it's better than nothing so I put the {{mfd|help=off}} template on each page, except for the one tht it was agreed to keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This editor needs their history to be reviewed. I'm seeing they have only been here since February and is already mistakenly labeling a questioner in the current RFA as someone who has made no edits elsewhere. Changing the title of someone else's thread in the same RFA. The relisting issues mentioned above. This seems like an editor trying to act like a admin. Valeince (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• • @Valeince: Having watched @Chicdat: since they joined, I do feel like some of their contributions are a bit odd and confusing. Especially when you consider that the user is a very young editor (Year 2 - 4 on the UK Education System) who needs to get more life experience and doesnt like 6-year-olds editing the encyclopedia. However, I do wonder if @Bbb23: was on to something here, especially when you consider that they disappeared for about a User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_2#Uh,_Chicdat? week afterwards.Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry to correct you, Jason Rees, but it's not conceivably possible that Bbb23, with his years of experience, could have been right about a thing like that, since ArbCom has definitively ruled that as a CU he was a potent danger to the community and needed to be shorn of his powers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I reverted the MfD close re-listing before I saw this discussion, but it looks like most of the other editors here agree with undoing it. In any case, if an admin thinks that I was mistaken and wants to relist it, I'll certainly respect that, although I think that would be a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)--Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hope you don't mind, I changed your "close" above to "re-listing". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Please Help!

Please save me from Hatchens. I am afraid. I came here after suggested by Adamant1. I just want to put in to the notice of Wikipedia's admins. I don't know why Hatchens is so offensive on me. He nominated all the articles created by me. Even i never face this user in past in any edit war or something else. After all this, I have checked Hatchens account and found some intersting facts, please refer below.

Hatchens is nominating the articles for deletion without checking the references. Most of his nominations are false and those articles saved as "Keep" or "Speedy Keep" or "Soft Delete". Such as IILM Institute for Higher Education, Care Hospitals, Krishna Shankar, Ansal University, Radio Mango, Zambar Restaurent, Baseer Ali, Liam Brennan, Dinesh Parmar, Biplob, Rachel Goenka, Pramati Technologies, Sayantani Guhathakurta, Shivin Narang, Artech, Audrish Banerjee, and there is a long list of "Keep" results. Please help! Randfiskin (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens's AFD stats look fine. Only 3 AFDs relate to the OP, none of them listed above, and all still open (though all going off-topic), Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF), V-NOVA, and Vogue Institute of Art & Design. The OP's outrage seems to have been triggered by an allegation of paid editing which they have tried to remove but not addressed. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

While I think Hatchens is probably on the nose with the WP:PAID thing, I am tempted to concur with Adamant1 suggestion that as it's pretty there's something off about both of you and you obviously have a problem with each other that needs to to be worked out...Maybe these nominations should be put on hold for and you should take it to ANI, because I don't think this is the place to litigate your personal issues ([17]). FTR, I already voted in one of them (which brought me here). Incidentally, can I also suggest that both Hatchens and Randfiskin cease bolding their every reply to each other?! It doesn't give the comment any more authority, but actually distracts from what you are each saying, as well as making the page near-unreadable. ——Serial 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear ——Serial, your concern has been duly noted. Will follow your suggestion to avoid any such distraction. Thank you. -Hatchens (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unbolding performed successfully at other two AfD discussions - V-NOVA and Vogue Institute of Art & Design. -Hatchens (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait are the previous CEO of Moz (marketing software)? I saw this on my watchlist and thought this might be in relation to my deletion nomination of that page. But looks like it has nothing to with that. Are you in any way related to Special: Contributions/Randfish? I don't know how much WP:IMPERSONATE applies since Rand Fishkin is a public figure but not *that* public; he had also requested that his Wikipedia page be deleted. Also, your page creations do look very suspicious from a paid editing angle. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not just the articles - the overall editing pattern is also suspicious. MER-C 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear MER-C, adding more to your suspicion. If we take this article - Vogue Institute of Art & Design. Kindly, have a look at the edits done by Vexations in support of the creator on July 27, 2020. Also, do note the edit summary - "press releases, primary sources". Now, when this article put on the AfD discussion; the creator Randfiskin gets active to defend the page(s). But, kindly do note, all critical edits of removing the very same promotional material taken over by Vexations and Bri. For more details, click here and click here. Both are highly experienced editors with a track record of more than a decade of editing (collectively speaking) with an ample amount of clout by being part of various user groups, except "Wiki Administrators". Now, there are two questions that I would like to ask myself and others in this discussion thread - 1) Are we looking at a network of Editor IDs (new and old) trying to game the system, or 2) My assessment is going wrong somewhere in between? Both the questions, I cannot answer with such little experience (as rightly suggested by Randfiskin). I hope, I can derive some learning from here. This may be the first time... I have been tagged and notified to WP:ANB, But, believe me, I will be here more often... of course as per courtesy calls raised by the other creators.

Resysop Grace Period RfC

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

---

There is an RfC about whether there should be a grace period/grandfathering of administrators based on the last changes at the last resysop RfC. Interested editors are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

I have received welcome notices from two other language wikis I have not signed into

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

---

Earler today I received this message in Hindi [18] and just now I received one in Ukranian [19]. The Ukrainian one has a user page [20] with a message "I edit WP. Creating this page so my name does not appear in red here.". This is certainly not me, I have never signed into those versions of WP. I find this rather worrying, has somebody had access to my password? What if anything should I do about it, I don't want to be responsible for activities under my name which have nothing to do with me.Smeat75 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: Change your password at once. Something strong and unique. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

meta:Special:Contributions/Smeat75 I see you created your meta user page in February. Any wiki where you have not created a user page will transclude your meta page. Such I see on Ukrainian Wiki --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You can check your contribs globally here. FWIW, I get welcomes from all over the world, but only edit here and on meta. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I get these every now and then, in different languages from Wikipedias I've never gone near - that's even with a strong password and 2FA, and definitely no security breach. I think it's related to the unified password thing, and there are weird ways you can appear to have connected up with other projects. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Smeat75 for all the projects your account has been connected to, and anyone on any of those could choose to welcome you. Check the projects you've had welcomes from and check if your account has done anything there, and if not I wouldn't worry about it. But definitely have a strong and unique password anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did sign into meta in Feb, maybe that explains it, though it seems odd that that was in Feb and I get welcome messages from other language wikis fr the first time in July. Anyway, I changed my password. Thanks for your help.Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

When I get these, it's not related to any recent log in to meta. I've no idea what triggers it, but if you look at my global account you'll see something has attached it to a huge number of projects - and I've probably had around 20 or 30 welcomes from various ones so far! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Although this Wikipedia objects perennially to the idea of a bot welcoming users, others have implemented it, and I imagine that's responsible for many a ghost welcome. ——Serial 16:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I used a script to sign in to all Wikimedia sites. This got most of the welcomes out of the way. As SN points out there were some delayed welcomes when that particular wiki ran a welcoming bot later on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for the advice and help. Smeat75 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Changes to Oversight team

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight rights of GB fan (talk · contribs) are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to Oversight team

Reopening non-admin-closed RfC

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

---

RfC at Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#Merger proposal was closed by an editor after just 11 days. Can an admin re-open this so that others can vote as well? Thanks. François Robere (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No evidence (at least in the closing diff) that this was an RFC. Closing editor was not even asked about the close before this was posted. Closing editor was not notified by OP that this discussion was happening. François Robere, this post is step #4 and you've skipped steps 1-3. I'm half-tempted to close this just because it's so far out-of-process. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted Chrisdevelop's close as it was clearly out of process. Let's not let AN bureaucracy get in the way. Fences&Windows 22:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fences and windows, genuinely out of curiosity, what's out-of-process about that close? It wasn't an AN, and 11 days is plenty of time for a merge discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, the close tallied votes rather than assessing consensus and was done by an involved user, contrary to Wikipedia:MERGECLOSE. Fences&Windows 22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see it was an involved close. That should have been mentioned, not all the other non-existent reasons for re-opening. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Appeal to rescind Topic Ban

Background

• August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
• February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
• April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
• November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
• May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
• June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.

Davidbena's original post follows. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Joe, hope it's OK, I added a minor tweak in green to prevent people from getting the wrong idea that this request is forumshopping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I, the appealing user, Davidbena (talk · contribs · WHOIS), am humbly submitting this petition to rescind a Topic ban imposed against me by Ymblanter in the ARBPIA area; imposed here (no. 55), during my last appeal in November of 2019, and which I had mistakenly tried to appeal on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard earlier this year. My wrongly placed topic ban appeal was declined on 13 June 2020 as shown here and where I was asked to submit a new appeal at AN, at a later time. I have duly informed all administrators involved in imposing this ban (Euryalus, Bishonen, Oshwah, Ymblanter), hoping for a fair and equitous resolution of the same.

The reason for this appeal is, first and foremost, because the current Topic ban in the ARBPIA area has been active against me for the duration of a little over one year. I am humbly asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, seeing that many of the articles classified under the ARBPIA template are, in fact, historical places (e.g. Kafr 'Inan, Bayt Nattif, Solomon's Pools, Old City (Jerusalem), etc.). Often, the involvement of these places in the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts are only incidental to their broader historical context and scope, for which I am mostly interested in writing about. If I should ever touch on the Arab-Israeli wars from a historical perspective, I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among fellow contributors. I will also keep foremost in my mind that we, as editors, are to present a fact-based and fact-checked narrative of events, based on reliable sources, and detached from all personal bias and/or taking any side in this area of conflict. I assure my fellow co-editors here that I will not use my role as editor to advocate any advocacy on behalf of any one side in this conflict, but try to be as open-minded as I can to both arguments of the conflict in question (having a healthy respect and goodwill for all peoples who live in and share the same land), stating the facts as neutrally as I possibly can, whenever I am called upon to do so.

I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors, and try to present both sides of the argument (if need be), that is to say, neutrality, rather than pursue an advocacy for any one side, just as requested by WP policy.

Recently, I was asked to fix problems in the reference formatting of an article nominated for DYK that is classified as ARBPIA, as shown here, but because of its ARBPIA classification, I could not do anything to that article.

DISCLAIMER: a) In those articles where there is an ARBPIA template, I have altogether refrained from editing; b) in those articles where there is not an ARBPIA template, my edits in them have not been about anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Only once on a Talk-Page did I vaguely mention it in passing, but when reminded that this topic is "off-limits" to me even in unmarked pages, I quickly desisted.Davidbena (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reading the discussion that imposed your Topic ban, I see it is your second indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic ban (which you neglected to mention in this appeal), and that after the first one was lifted you returned to the same problematic editing. That's all I need to know. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us a second time, stay topic banned permanently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, briefly looking through some of the previous disputes, I come across this comment from Davidbena in April 2019: "Actually, Josephus disproves the theory of modern revisionists of history (who dare dispute the historicity of King Solomon)...". Anyone with that approach to history and to WP:RS shouldn't be allowed within a mile of this subject matter (broadly construed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, first indefinite topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:, I didn't forget the first topic ban on purpose, but thought that it was more important to write about the second, the active topic ban only.Davidbena (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Considering your second ban was imposed just two months after the first one was lifted, and you were advised at AE to include the full timescale of your bans at any AN appeal, I'd say that was exceptionally poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Reading through all this again today, I'm struck by Nableezy's comments below, which I find gracious and constructive. Nableezy is far closer to this subject area and its disputes, and my own judgment is far less well informed, so I'm withdrawing my opposition to the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Erk Does Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fall within said topic ban? (tiptoes away quietly and finally goes back to bed.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, also: Wadi al-Far'a (river) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a river in the West Bank; Madaba Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a map of the Holy Land showing the "border between Israel and Palestine" and used by both sides in claims of destiny. Guy (help!) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles you mention are not under the general ARBPIA ban, since the ban only applies to articles where the ARBPIA template has been appended on the Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Err, is it? Your original topic ban was from "all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed". Was there some later discussion clarified it only applied to articles with a template? – Joe (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, What do those articles have to do with the IP conflict? Is the Hebrew alphabet now part of the conflict? Is a mosaic from the 6th Century now part of the conflict? No, it's not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet: just look at its talk page. There are disputes on whether the script or exists independently or is an Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade. Davidbena participated extensively in a contentious merge discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. The Madaba Map, as Guy has already mentioned, is an important piece of historical geography used in contemporary territorial claims: Although the original Madaba Map was part of a Christian edifice situated outside Palestine, it was highly regarded by Zionist archaeologists not only for its universal significance but as a remnant of the Jewish national past in Palestine. The Zionist rhetoric used it to verify the important role of the city of Jerusalem in the Jewish narrative of place. The idea of creating modern maps of Jerusalem, in the spirit of the Madaba Map is best exemplified by Naomi Henrik's mosaic decoration (Figure 7), originally installed in 1957 outside the entrance to the Jerusalem Municipality building and later transferred and reinstalled at the Mount Herzl complex in Jerusalem. [21] Anyone working on the history of the Southern Levant would agree that there is practically nothing about it that isn't politicised. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Joe, look again at the Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. In the section where I was involved in the discussion about this antiquated script, there was no mention whatsoever about "Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade." And, besides, I was unaware of its mention. So, does this mean that if the article New York has a discussion on its Talk-Page about Palestinian nationalists or Israeli nationalists in one of its sections that I am not free to talk about the city of New york in a different section? I do not think that this falls under the definition of "broadly construed."Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, None of those examples have anything to do with the conflict. You're basically stretching it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You're basically stretching it, i.e., broadly construing it. FWIW, I think Davidbena has attempted to abide by the expectations of the TBAN as he understands them, but it would've been wiser, as BMK points out below, to avoid the area altogether and focus his edits in a completely different area. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but the page is not even "broadly construed" to be part of the conflict, merely because some people mention "nationalism" on the talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Deepfriedokra, I think what you are doing is muddying the water. To say that Paleo-Hebrew falls under ARBPIA conflict is ludicrous and knowing that most people will not check the page for content. Really shameful that you'd mention it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A second indefinite ban indicates a serious problem, and the appeal doesn't address that other than to repeat the platitudes that turned out to be false promises last time. Guy (help!) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I understand your worries, but I wish to remind you that both topic bans against me were the result of my having filed complaints against two other editors, for which I am terribly sorry and I am resolved never again to cast aspersions against them. I am simply asking for an opportunity to prove myself, and, if all else fails, this body can ban me without any right to an appeal.Davidbena (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, to clarify for others, although Davidbena's topic ban cites ARBPIA and he implies it was placed by Ymblanter, it's a community ban, nothing to do with arbitration, discretionary sanctions or arbitration enforcement as far as I can tell. As to the appeal, the idea that historic (pre-1948) topics are only "incidentally" related to the Israel–Palestine conflict is deeply flawed. Everything about the ownership, naming and interpretation of historic sites in Israel–Palestine, from the 20th century right back into prehistory, is highly politicised and contested. Both sides in the contemporary conflict lean heavily on contested historical claims. It's hard to believe that anyone familiar with this area could be genuinely ignorant of this. It's especially hard to be believe Davidbena is, because the previous discussions of his topic ban have mainly concerned his edits to historic topics, and he has recently been involved in PIA-related content disputes in articles like Paleo-Hebrew alphabet and Hebraization of Palestinian place names. In fact, I think some sort of boomerang is in order given that this and other edits above seem to be clear breaches of his topic ban. At the very least, we should clarify/reiterate that he his banned from the Palestine-Israel topic broadly construed, not just articles that happen to have this-or-that template. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Right, the re-imposed topic ban from May 2019 said "Davidbena is again indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed", not "all WP:ARBPIA topics with the template on the talk page."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Even so, where the ARBPIA template does not appear, I have still refrained from discussing ARBPIA topics. Only once did I err in this regard, and quickly ceased from doing it again. All other edits were of a general non-political nature, such as archaeological/historical/geographical issues, without raising the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, if my edits were wrong, I would have expected someone to tell me that I cannot edit pages such as the Onomasticon (Eusebius), although the work has absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even though it speaks about towns and villages in the Holy Land.Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe, I wish to remind you and others here that in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names it was agreed upon by the contributing editors NOT to add the ARBPIA template, which enabled me to edit that page, where the issues were purely geographical. Only once did I err there, and was quickly reprimanded, and I stopped. When the editors decided that the article belonged to the ARBPIA category it was then that I stopped editing that article altogether.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I can see how the template issue could be an honest misunderstanding (but to reiterate, your TBAN is from the topic and broadly construed, it has nothing to do with the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions). But are you seriously claiming that the archaeology, history and geography of Israel–Palestine is "non-political"? Hebraization of Palestinian place names, for example, is about the replacement of Arabic placenames with Hebrew ones, particularly after the 1948 and 1967 wars. An editor like you, who is knowledgeable about this subject, should not need a template to tell you that is directly related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are "non-political" when most of the discussions there were strictly about the British governance over the country, before the rise of the State of Israel, and where the article speaks about the naming of sites after the rise of the State, my edits referred only to the ancient history of these sites, preserved in Arabic writing, and which have nothing to do with the conflict between Jews and Arabs. In fact, I stressed the importance of preserving the Old Arabic names since they are a reflection of the Old Hebrew names. What's more, my edits had absolutely nothing to do with the political conflict, but only geography and placenames (except for once when I briefly mentioned the conflict, but quickly deleted it). Again, I would NEVER have edited this page had the ARBPIA template not been removed.Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Joe Roe, please clarify how Paleo-Hebrew is covered under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've answered you above. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, indeed, Joe Roe has answered that query above, but also more substantively in their oppose comment — in an especially eloquent and poignant way, I would add. El_C 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, as I said above, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but it's ludicrous to say that Paleo-Hebrew is part of the IP conflict, even broadly construed. I once mentioned that I can get any page on Wikipedia to be "broadly construed" and we really shouldn't be doing that. Just because one person mentions "nationalism" on the talk page (which may or may not have anything to do with the conflict) we should not be bringing more pages into the conflict area.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, the fact is that the Committee has chosen to widen the scope of ARBPIA, as can be seen in ARBPIA4's Definition of the "area of conflict" onto "primary articles" and "related content." El_C 16:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, none of those applies to Paleo-Hebrew. I agree with Boing below. IF we are going to sanction someone or not accept an appeal for a TBAN, it should be for a valid TBAN violation, not for some 1 mile stretch of a TBAN topic violation. Can I edit the USA article if I'm TBANNED from the IP conflict since the USA is related to Israel and Israel is associated with the conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, I don't disagree that for "related content," the nature of the edits in question must be weighed in relation to ARBPIA, directly. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have opposed previous appeals. For this one, I just want to point out that I'm disappointed that Davidbena was selective in following the advice he was given for this appeal. While he did notify relevant admins, he did not disclose the full sequence of bans and appeals, as suggested. This whitewashes the history here, for anyone who sees this appeal and is unaware. Grandpallama (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Good point. I've added the background to the top of this thread. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh dear, that shows the second ban was only two months after the first ban was lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Topic ban came only "two months" after my first Topic ban, but I think it can be fairly appreciated by my fellow co-editors here that a previously banned editor (such as myself) has no way of knowing that if he files a complaint against another editor (say, an editor whom he thought may have acted injudiciously) that the complaint would backfire and he would find himself banned once more. I'm sorry, but this is what happened to me, and I admit that I was haste in my judgment, and that I have since made amends with that same editor; in short, I will not do this again.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that both filing that complaint in the first place, and then not expecting any possible backfire, is another example of very poor judgment. I don't doubt that you are well meaning, but I just think you don't have the ability to see other viewpoints or to understand why your approach has been so problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear lack of understanding as to WHY the ban was placed in the first place. And no, filing a complaint is NOT a reason for a topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry, but if I made amends with the editor against whom I filed a complaint is this not a sign of remorse and understanding where I had been wrong? If this isn't, what is?Davidbena (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per the selective sanction history portrayed by Davidbena and the topic ban violations found by Deepfriedokra and JzG --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Guerillero, can you clarify the violations? Are you saying that paleo-Hebrew is under ARBPIA violation? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's quite clear from past actions and the comments here that Davidbena really has no intrinsic sense of how he should be editing while under a broadly -construed topic ban. It has always been my opinion that people under such a ban should edit far, far, away from the subject area in question, but that has not been the case here, nor do I see it ever being the case. In fact, what I foresee is an eventual site ban for frittering around the edges of the ban and sticking his toes into the water once too often, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, shalom. If I were to follow your guidelines (which I think are misguided), I would not be able to edit any article (even of geographical/historical/archaeological natures) that has to do with any place in Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, but this is NOT what is meant by being "broadly construed." And besides, I have not discussed Israeli-Palestinian issues since my Topic ban, except for once, and I was quickly reprimanded and I stopped.Davidbena (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that is exactly what is meant by broadly construed. See WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. It would be one thing if the Israel–Palestine conflict had nothing to do with history or historical geography, but it does. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of "broadly construed" means simply not to bring-up in conversation any mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether in articles that have the ARBPIA template or in articles that do not have the ARBPIA template. However, to speak about Israeli food in a Tel-Aviv article is permitted. As for Arab-Israeli political issues, I have refrained from them altogether.Davidbena (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

While I am skeptical of Davidbena's ability to edit neutrally in this area if his TBAN were lifted, and I think he misrepresents his history of edit conflicts in this area, I do suspect his editing around the edges of this area is more a product of his beliefs about what the TBAN entails rather than a deliberate attempt to push the envelope. That said, if a consensus exists that some of these topics lie within the boundaries of "broadly construed", it's probably to his benefit that this expectation is clarified. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Joe Roe, that is incorrect. If someone is TBANNED from the IP conflict, they aren't TBANNED from Israel or Palestine articles. Editing an article that has nothing to do with the conflict is not prohibited and we should not be locking down articles where there is no conflict just for the sake of locking it down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The scope of the current topic ban has come up above, and I'll comment here to avoid fragmenting any other conversations. It's not a DS ban, but as "ARBPIA" was specifically mentioned, I don't think it's unreasonable of Davidbena to have interpreted it as covering only the I/P conflict itself (even with "broadly construed" - that's such an nebulous concept that what might seem like obvious coverage to some will seem different to others). Yes, it could have been interpreted more broadly, but I don't see Davidbena's interpretation as obviously implausible, and I do see it as being in good faith. If the community wants to tighten the definition of the topic ban scope then that of course can be covered here. But I think any sanction for allegedly breaking the ban through a good faith interpretation of its scope would be wrong, and I would strongly oppose any such move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, and very well put. Grandpallama (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I never understand exactly how broadly is "broadly construed". If I am topic banned from AP2, can I edit United States of America? Christianity? American English? United States Constitution? AR-15? Mass shooting? North America? If I am topic banned from PIA, can I edit Hebrew or Arabic? Islam or Judaism? Military occupation or terrorism? Middle East? If I am topic banned from The Troubles can I edit Great Britain or Ireland? Catholicism or Protestantism? What if I just edit the portions of those articles that don't relate to the conflict? I'm glad I'm not topic banned from anything because I'd have no idea. Without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia's search function broken for you? I mean the this description of what constitutes topic bans is pretty comprehensive. To help you, I've reproduced it below:

• The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

• weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind and List of weather records, and their talk pages;
• weather-related categories such as all of the categories that are associated with Category:Weather;
• weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;
• weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
• discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).

• Does that answer your questions -- or were your questions just a rhetorical device not actually dependent on answers? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't and have never doubted David's good faith here, and I take him at his word on his understanding of the topic ban and what it applied to and I think the arguments above on whether or not such and such page is covered by it should be reframed so it is less about his mistakes in understanding about the ban previously and more about helping him adhere to it in the future. I also dont think it is reasonable to say somebody who is subject to a topic ban about the ARBPIA topic should refrain from editing subjects even remotely related. David is one of our better resources for the Jewish history in Israel/Palestine, he researches thoroughly and when not discussing modern politics is in my honest opinion an affable and pleasant person who is enjoyable to work with. I think perhaps there needs to be a bit more clarity of the extent of the ban, but I do not see what he has been doing as "frittering around the edges". I dont really think Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, as the example contested above, is covered by his ban (though Sir Joseph I also do not think you are helping David even a little bit here). Broadly construed still has limits and I think that example goes quite a bit past those limits. My view on his ban remains unchanged. If David commits to a. not promoting fringe viewpoints regarding the modern politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and b. commits to not questioning the motives of those who have opposing viewpoints to him, then I still have no problem with him editing in the topic area. If his ban is not rescinded I would strongly suggest that it be narrowed. David is an asset for a lot of these articles, he brings sources and research that nobody else does. We should let him. Anything that is not directly related to the modern state of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians should be excluded from his ban. Ancient villages, ancient alphabets, ancient anything should be excluded from his ban. nableezy - 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support remove TBAN. This whole ill-conceived mess is a setup for failure. It is too subjective, too vague, too arbitrary, and too confusing. Davidbena has been editing constructively and with forebearance about subjects that may or not have been covered by his topic ban. No one can say for sure whether they are or not.. As Levivich puts it, "without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support a narrower ban per Nableezy: something like (a) retaining topic ban on modern-day Palestinian-Israeli conflict, (b) a strict sanction on questioning the motives of other editors or promoting fringe theories in any area, and (c) otherwise permitting editing of Middle Eastern regional topics including ancient Jewish history, geography, etc unrelated to the modern state. (Nableezy, let me know if I've misinterpreted your view). Not normally a supporter of a "last chance" after a previous "last chance" but some of the comments here encouraged a look at Davidbena's wider editing history, and they seem a competent and well-researched editor outside the immediate topic area of modern Israel-Palestine. On that basis the encyclopedia seems better off for their ancient history/geography/cultural contributions, and we should aim to let them carry on in those spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting or narrowing the topic ban, per Nableezy, DFO and Euryalus, and per lack of evidence of continued disruption. To me, whether David properly formatted this appeal by linking to the prior ones, and David's understanding of what "broadly construed" means, are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether David has been editing without being disruptive and the answer seems to be yes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic ban. The editor has shown remorse, and sincerely plans to edit in accordance with the expectations of the community, including the higher expectations in the sensitive area of the WP:ARBPIA area. I find the fact that Nableezy, who could be considered to be on the opposite site of that conflict as the editor who filed this request, has agreed to lifting the topic ban, and has in fact described this editor in a very positive light, a telling sign that Wikipedia only stands to gain from lifting this editor's topic ban. I would like to add that the rather unforgiving approach of some here, is tantamount to a declaration that no topic ban can ever be rescinded, and editors can't ever improve their old ways. I refuse to acquiesce to such a position, and think that any closure of this request should contain a general statement rejecting that position. Likewise I think there is little to be gained from the formalist approach of some here, with undue stress on whether the filing included all relevant details. In this regards I'd like to stress that the filing editor explained that he thought it would be enough to mention the current, active topic ban only, and I find that a convincing explanation. In short, Davidbena is one of our better editors, who after over a year of his topic ban has understood well how he is to behave in the WP:ARBPIA area, and I think it would be reasonable to give him the chance to contribute positively to this project in that area as well by rescinding his topic ban now. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Something else

In reference to the the User Talk on[Talk: Loonboy007], with the subject matter reference being Gautam Navlakha. I would like to submit that I made updates to the Gautam Navlakha;s wiki page based on recent publicly available and verified events relating to Gautam Navlakha. The source of the edits has been documented as third parties with whom I have no relationship. As such, the edits made by me are consistent with the policies laid out by Wikipedia regarding reliable source and WP:BLP. However, users SerChevalerie and Tayi Arajakate keep undoing the edits. This is in violation of WP:NOT as these editors are clearly engaging in WP:ADVOCACY and in Propaganda Wikipedia:NOTPROPAGANDA. Loonboy007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits were reverted because they violated WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV. Instead of discussing the problematic edits, the user decided to edit war. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User is also not clear about this noticeboard, I was not formally informed on my Talk page, came here because I saw the ping. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Loonboy007, They were reverted because it was a pretty blatant WP:BLP violation, not to mention half of it was original research. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn TBANs/Blacklisting

Pinging @Floquenbeam and Deepfriedokra: who mentioned it in discussion A couple of discussions have raised issues about the additional damage people with RedWarn can cause (I should note that in each case Twinkle was noted as also having the same issues - it's a general tool point). There is a live case where it was mooted as a potential issue in ANI atm.

I dropped a query to @Ed6767: just as to the possibility of being able to blacklist problematic users from using it, which would allow a means of limiting use of RedWarn short of a full block, or at least a tool-related TBAN.

Ed6767 was commendably quick and has set up a page where admins could add users viewed as not suited to using it (we'd protect it and notify Ed before first use), and is working on the backend coding. Obviously a user could, say, switch to Twinkle but limiting issues where we can is to be appreciated.

This is partially an FYI of the potential use (hence AN, not VPR) and partially a question:

To me it seems like it should be akin removing Rollback userright from a problematic user who is unable to use Huggle properly. That would allow any admin to add a user to the list (subject to AN appeals) as well as community additions.

However, it could be interpreted as it should be purely TBAN-authorised. I felt it best to clarify this first. The blacklist page is here - Ed just wrote up the page form as it is, so there may also be specific notes in it that need amending by the community.

Viewpoints? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The wider point which would lead to less of these issues cropping up would be to raise the usage pre-reqs in the first place (e.g. extended confirmed or rollback). I can't imagine we'd be having these discussions as often if it wasn't something that anybody could pick up and run with. Darren-M talk 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(pining most active maintainer) Amorymeltzer, would you be willing to implement a blacklist of a similar fashion into Twinkle? Having one standardised blacklist for similar semi-automated tools with the rather low (auto-)confirmed might help reduce abuse on enwiki. Ed6767 talk! 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping — I noted this below, but Twinkle used to have such a list. It was removed as essentially unused and a pain to maintain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A simple solution would be just to require rollback to use it and then yank rollback if there are issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Twinkle and RedWarn should need RB (though that would absolutely be a simple way to handle it). Shifting to EC is a possibility, though I'd still be reticent - it would drop problems, significantly, certainly, but also have a significant collateral effect. If a single blacklist were possible that would be a plus, as a distinct point from minimum permission level. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think it should be a requirement for twinkle, because we’re not really seeing problems with Twinkle. I’d prefer roll back to EC, because we’re really hesitant to yank EC, but more willing to take away rollback. I don’t like the blacklist idea because it requires demonstrated error rather than demonstrated competence. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be very easy to implement by simply changing one word in the code, but that would slash user appeal and uptake, we're already running abysmally low on editors willing to do RCP and it's hard to introduce a new tool when its user base is artificially bottlenecked by that right. Ed6767 talk! 19:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that people using red warm are starting to cause more good faith disruption than the vandals. We have bots, Huggle, Stiki, edit filters, etc. Most of the stuff that’s being reverted would get taken care of anyway. If we’re constantly having to have a discussion about Red Warn, then it is causing more harm than it’s preventing. Finding a way to help change that dynamic is what we’re after. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, I would question whether we are actually seeing such a dearth of RCPers as you think; I regularly log into Huggle to see 'nothing to review', or try to revert an edit to find I've been beaten to it. What evidence are you seeing that would suggest reducing the amount of people with access to RedWarn would have a detrimental impact on the project? Darren-M talk 19:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that 85% of the stuff I have to revert when doing RCP is not a highlighted edit, and over 50% doesn't trip any of the less dramatic warnings/tags. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darren-M and TonyBallioni:, see above ^^ - TonyBalloni, those systems are not watertight. RCP isn't just for vandalism, but for promotional edits, spam links, poor sourcing, BLP issues and much more. STiki is dead, Huggle has a practically inaccessible and cryptic design for many non-technical users, especially ones who edit using ChromeOS devices or mobile (especially with iPadOS), an increasingly popular option, and Twinkle is good for many things, but pretty poor at for recent changes patrol - in fact, it frustrated me enough to go out of my way to create a tool to fix its issues. Here's some idea I have that could solve issues:

• Disable auto-warn for non-ECo editors
• Add automatic abuse detection systems in RedWarn (tricky but could try)
• You can still patrol RedWarn changes with the #RedWarn tag in recent changes (excluding reverts by users with rollback rights due to a weird bug)
• We're currently planning to migrate RedWarn from a userscript to toolforge also, so additional restrictions would be much, much easier to implement. The new redwarn-react project intends to make RedWarn feel much more like a tool, and help fix many of the current issues with the redwarn-web userscript.
• Integrating RedWarn more with the CVUA, or adding an "ask for help" button where you can get another more experienced RedWarn users opinion on an edit and see what actions they take, or implement a tutorial, however, this could make it feel, to some, even more "like a video game" than a powerful tool.

Quite frankly, the same issues occur with Twinkle, if not more, but as a new and more niche tool, there have been issues. This is more than a RedWarn specific problem, but due to its user-friendliness and consequential use by more inexperienced users, using RedWarn to implement new anti-abuse mechanisms to pave the way for other tools may be ideal. I'd love to hear more of people's suggestions, but I don't think restricting the entire tool to rollbackers only is the right way to go. Ed6767 talk! 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that RCP isn’t just for vandalism, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here: it’s been marketed to inexperienced users, and they’ve basically been the only people using it. Because of this, I think in its current iteration RedWarn has probably caused more damage to Wikipedia than it has cleaned up, when you consider the fact that most of this stuff would have been picked up otherwise. I don’t think it has to continue to be a net-negative tool, but it currently is because of the population that uses it. The easy way to fix that is to make it have the same requirements as other automated/semi-automated tools: that is it should have a requirement for use, not a blacklist for misuse. If you do that, I think it’ll move the tool into being really helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The marketing has never been targeted at inexperienced users, it's user-friendliness has consequentially resulted in less experienced users using it. Back during my "invite" campaign, I'd only target users with a competent knowledge of using Twinkle. The stock RedWarn EXTUB template pack doesn't actually even include an invite for non-Twinkle users - this was solely in an attempt to gather feedback from experienced editors, and to mitigate the negative impact on RedWarn's reputation newer inexperienced users would cause within the first 2 months of its existence. Again, due to its still small user base, misuse will, of course, appear more prominently than users who use the tool appropriately and in good faith. Despite this, it's still an issue, and we'll continue discussing solutions to this both here and behind the scenes to refine things and hopefully mitigate some of these issues and hopefully pull RedWarn up to the standards of more experienced editors through the redwarn-react project Ed6767 talk! 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Beside the point, but with links and rollback-in-place on recent changes, I think Twinkle hums pretty nicely there! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, to clarify, my main gripe with Twinkle for RCP is the fact that it still relies on multiple pages and things, rather than keeping one workflow all nice and bundled in one tab, it goes overboard opening a user page in a new tab, where you have to go into a little submenu and manually warn from there which can time quite some time, along with waiting for the page and Twinkle to load. Plus the "there have been x edits in a row" message, which I found quite frustrating and confusing, along with "this is no longer the latest revision" because you fill in the summary and everything and it's just like well sorry you're gonna have to do that all again - a textbook "computer says no" moment. It just slows things down and feels far less efficient, so there are definitely improvements to be made there. Ed6767 talk! 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• (e/c...sorry, I type slow and some of this is echoed above by others) Excellent; this morning, I just "enforced" a RedWarn ban by saying I'd indef block the user if they used it again. I like the idea of a blacklist much better. Three comments:
  • I would dearly love a similar way to prevent users from using Twinkle.
  • I've long been a fan of admins being able to issue topic bans and interaction bans (subject to review at WP:AN/ANI) to prevent disruption, rather than having to get advanced permission to do so at AN/ANI. It has always seemed a little crazy I can block someone indef for disruption, but not TBAN/IBAN for it. This goes double for removing access to RedWarn/Huggle/Twinkle. I'm trusted to not misuse blocking, and should be trusted to not misuse the less potent tool blacklisting. If I do misuse tool blacklisting, I'm subject to the same review process as misusing blocking. I really think it best to treat this like removing rollback, not like topic banning.
  • Thanks User:Nosebagbear for taking the initiative, and thanks User:Ed6767 for being so responsive.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree firmly with be able to add TBANs/IBANs without prior approval - our sole discretion siteblocks are for ultra-clearcut cases, ones which shouldn't just be resolvable with IBANs/TBANs. AE is ideologically unpleasant to me already - but that's a major discussion to hold elsewhere. However, tool blacklisting, I agree, would be a good discretionary activity. I should note that appeals should need a consensus to uphold the penalty, not overturn. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that, with the implementation of partial blocks, we can basically topic ban people from an article or a set of articles already. Editors can now even be blocked from entire namespaces...

Anyway, wrt your proposal here, I'm certainly in favour of allowing admins to blacklist editors unilaterally subject to appeals. Salvio 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear and Floquenbeam: I figure they're pretty different though. A TBAN or IBAN are because some folk is/are incapable of avoiding disruptive behavior in a specific area or around a specific individual; the general idea is to limit the specific realm of conflict. Misuse of a tool, though, is much more like WP:CIR issues, WP:IDHT, or just general disruptive behavior: it's a measure of basic competence. YMMV, but if someone is abusing/misusing a tool everywhere, that's just plain disruptive behavior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's history here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#New Twinkle blacklist proposal. Basically, Twinkle had a disallow list like is being mooted here, and in the end it was done away with. A few options were discussed, which participants here might want to read through. My general thinking is that such a disallow list is unlikely to ever be heavily populated, and that if someone is abusing or misusing a tool and continues to do so despite warnings, that's disruptive and we have tools for preventing that behavior. To quote Elen of the Roads, Twinkle isn't crack, users can just stop using it. Maintaining the list is a pain and adds complexity, when disruptive behavior should be treated as disruptive behavior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like a blacklist is useful for handling good-faith problematic use. The tools we have for preventing their mis-use, atm, are somewhat blunt when it comes to tool misuse that aren't tied to a userright. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that a block is blunt, but a user who can't figure out how to use a tool properly, and continues to use it incorrectly after being told how to remedy their behavior and/or to stop pretty quickly stops being good-faith or competent if they continue, no? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This proposal feels slightly premature. The community can always ban someone from using a tool at AN/ANI. Unless we're seeing repeated instances of people not following such a ban, I don't know if having a developer add technical restrictions is a good use of their time, or anyone else's. To my knowledge, not a single ban from RedWarn has been proposed at AN/ANI yet, not even the case that prompted this discussion is a clear proposal for a ban for a single user using RW. RedWarn is not that popularly used by non-rollbackers, when you look at how many reverts are made per user using the tool, that it would be too taxing to bring the especially egregious cases to AN/ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to imagine a situation where this would be legitimately useful. Without commenting specifically on RedWarn, if I were to observe someone abusing a tool, I'd block them before even considering the possibility of adding them to a "blacklist". -FASTILY 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A simple solution would be just to require rollback to use it and then yank rollback if there are issues. Light bulb moment, Tony. El_C 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems silly to me to have a blacklist for tools that do fundamentally unprivileged operations like RedWarn. A good-faith user will stop using it when they're told they're banned from doing so, and a bad-faith user can trivially circumvent any such checks that are added. The blacklist page itself even says so: if a user can bypass the permission restrictions, they can likely bypass the blacklist too, so a block may be advisable instead of blacklisting Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't tried RedWarn, but my gut tells me that it ought to be for rollbackers only - that is the norm for powerful high-speed reverting tools that issue automated warnings, like Huggle or Stiki (although with Stiki I believe that it was possible to be added to a list of non-rollbackers that were given access).

To go off at a bit of a tangent - I haven't felt tempted to try RedWarn myself, since I mostly use a Windows laptop for editing and am perfectly happy with using Twinkle for RC patrolling (with an occasional dip into Huggle to keep my hand in), but I can see the potential benefit of having a tool that works on different platforms. Where I really feel we have a hole in the counter-vandalism ecosystem, however, is the job that Stiki used to do - picking up old vandalism from Cluebot's queue, which made it through the Huggle/Twinkle net. I have in the past used Stiki to find flagrant BLP violations, of the 'unsourced allegations of sex offenses' kind, that went undetected for over a month. Does anyone know of any similar tools that allow you to pick up on dodgy diffs that might be days or even weeks old? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User page and/or signature copying?

Is there any guideline about it being unfavourable to copy another editor's user page or signature? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, AFAIK, not really. However, Wikipedia's license is WP:CC BY-SA, so attribution is usually required for original work, but if a user is forging another editors user page or signature, that's a different matter. Ed6767 talk! 02:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You could just ask them if you could borrow their layout. It's been a pretty longstanding practice, provided you ask. bibliomaniac15 05:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I don't think there's really any policy regarding this (unless it's a case of impersonation). The polite thing to do would certainly be to ask - or at least in the case of a userpage, it would be nice to give a nod / link to the original. SQL^{Query me!} 07:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all above. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

expert comment on edit

please compare this edit with previos edit i think what he is up to is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&oldid=970036532 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 09:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Massive backlog at RM

Hey all,

Just to let admins who don't frequent RM that there is a massive backlog forming there. Although I'm active in closing moves, there are some that would be better with administrator closure, if not for consensus appraisal reasons, for technical reasons (move-over-redirects are less intrusive on history pages than round-robin moves). Sceptre (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

India/Hindu/Muslim articles

My attention has been drawn to what appears to be a coordinated drive by Hindutva supporters (Hindu nationalists) against the current WMF donation drive in India. Katherine Meyer seems to be taking quite a bit of flak on Twitter, which follows on from OpIndia's earlier efforts to browbeat Jimbo. I suspect we're going to see even more disruption that usual on Indian articles, especially those of interest to extreme right-wing/anti-Muslim groups. I'm useless at Twitter links, which morph like crazy, but you'll hopefully get the idea from this zealot. We may need more eyes. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we're on OpIndia again regarding Jai Shri Ram. This may affect related articles like 2019 Jharkhand mob lynching, Takbir etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone interested can just go to Twitter and enter the hashtag #Wikipedia. You will see a firehose of abuse from Hindu nationalists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CIV, WP:CYBER and WP:PA by Flyer22 Frozen in order to WP:WIN.

I wrote a proposal about retitling an article here. And then Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) joined the discussion right after. They immediately started pinging specific editors to engage in the discussion and have a poll of their own and expressed their strong opposition. Then I was asked that it was better to turn the discussion into an official move request but since I was busy and occupied at the time I let it be and made the requested move some weeks later. I didn't start a new section to avoid duplication of already discussed subjects. The comments that were made and discussions that took place were all put in the "discussion" section and I added a vote section for the RM poll.

Flyer22 Frozen came back, berating me for something that he/she asked me to do which was turning the discussion into WP:RM. Then only hours after the RM was opened they closed the discussion, merely due to some oversight by an editor but Flyer22 started ordering me around telling me, 'DO NOT start a discussion about the subject' because 'nothing will EVER change' and saying I MUST NOT ping him/her in a discussion. then came back again lecturing me, calling my calm discussion, "rambling" & "going off at the mouth" which is WP:UNCIVIL. At that point, Flyer22 and the other users that were notified by him/her and voted 'oppose' started dominating the page and responding to every single 'support' which is WP:BLUD and objecting to the supporters of RM which is a violation of WP:CON.

Although the way Flyer22 pinged other editors seemed a little questionable to me, since 'Flyer22' is an experienced Wikipedian I assumed that's a way of WP:CAN so I did the same and notified some editors to participate in the discussion and share their opinion. but again 'Flyer22' came back questioning me and in order to turn the table and put the label on me accused me of 'having some kind of relations to the editors that I pinged' which is WP:AOBF and ad hominem and basically claiming, when they pinged some users for the poll it was okay and totally in accordance with WP:Canvassing but If I do it there's something wrong with it.

After that, another user, Mathglot (talk · contribs) pinged me, speaking on behalf of Flyer22 and strongly defending them, basically stating that I'm not allowed to question anything and Flyer22 is totally mistake-free and can do no wrong. later Mathglot attacked another editor to defend Flyer22. So now not only I'm being surrounded by never-ending comments that are directed at me from Flyer22, who is cherry picking statements from policies and resorts to faulty generalizations as an attempt to impose their personal opinion, but also I have to deal with yet another editor who's playing the role of an advocate/spokesperson for Flyer22. Considering that it is not a winning process, It's unacceptable and disruptive that they see the discussion as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, force their viewpoint with a huge volume of comments, insistently respond to all the 'supports' of the poll, continuously argue with them and try to bludgeon the process.

Flyer22 Frozen spoke with condescending and inappropriate language to me, repeatedly labeled my responses rambling, faulty and incoherent, adopted a disrespectful approach, and dismissive attitude toward me. He/she branded me just a newbie, let's say it is true, I am a much less experienced WikiPedian than 'Flyer22 Frozen' therefore what he/she did is WP:BITE and all of these courses of action just in order to get their own way and have the poll done according to their personal preference in spite of others' opinions. I was just an offeror of a WP:RM and made the proposal and now I've become the target of personal attacks by harassing lengthy comments from Flyer22 and others like Mathglot who jumped on the bandwagon. Bionic (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bionic, you joined Wikipedia in 2016 — you are no longer a newcomer. As for personal attacks, you have failed to demonstrate any —quote excerpts alongside diffs for that— which makes your accusation an aspersion. Otherwise, content disputes do not belong on this noticeboard. El_C 11:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I never said I was a newcomer I said that user called me one. and I did demonstrate them with diffs, The examples are highlighted above. Bionic (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A canvassing concern could legitimately be bought here, but without knowing anything about the two pinged editors in terms of move discussions, I can't tell whether they were legitimately pinged (it does look that way) or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is — I guess I got distracted by all the boldface. El_C 11:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bionic, my evaluation is that you have failed to demonstrate personal attacks. El_C 11:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The user's behavior and tone toward me and others. Continuously calling everything that I write rambling, faulty and incoherent. Arguing with anyone who voted 'support' and band together with a couple of other users that he/she pinged, against me and my opinion by inundating me with non-stop lengthy responses. Bionic (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Describing what one writes as being below par is not the same as an attack on one's person. El_C 11:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Resorting to fallacy in the discussion and questioning my character with a false accusation that I have some kind of relations to the editors that I pinged is ad hominem, especially since he/she did it first Flyer22 Frozen pinged editors and stated that it's a normal way of Wikipedia:Canvassing so I did it too. but when I did the exact same thing they did, suddenly there was something wrong with it.

The reason why the details, I mentioned, may not be noticeable here is that the discussion is increasingly boiling over due to the WP:BLUD. That's why I highlighted the words above. They totally treated the page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with their WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BLUD. The page history and their contribution speak for itself. Bionic (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering that this user is not an administrator or bureaucrat here, they can't go around ordering others what to do or not to do. He/she literally forbid me to do a RM and said nothing will have changed. Bionic (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Engaging in a constructive discussion and voting is my absolute right as a Wikipedian but they're putting the sword of Damocles above my head for it. This is harassment and attack. Bionic (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Bi-on-ic, I too see no evidence of a personal attack - being told that you're wrong about something isn't harassment or a personal attack, in fact, it should be a crucial part in learning and growing as an editor on Wikipedia. Ed6767 talk! 14:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you take a look at the highlighted examples that I mentioned above? Are you telling me that incivility, accusing others of bad faith, turning the discussion into a battleground and harassing me with a deluge of insulting comments and bludgeoning the process and arguing with those who voted positive in the poll, all in order to win the poll, is OK? Bionic (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is telling you that such behaviour is OK. They are telling you that none of the diffs that you linked demonstrate such behaviour rather than simple disagreement with your opinion. You are engaging in unwarranted speculation about people's motives rather than looking at what they actually wrote. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Two threads on ANI and now this where complaints are made against somebody for not breaking our policy or guideline on anything. Wierd. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If you actually care to review the matter, you'll see that I have mentioned and linked everything above. WP:UNCIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:BLUD don't consider as 'breaking policies or guidelines'? Bionic (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to sound like a Colonel Blimp here, but I would guess that you are of a rather younger generation than me (I am a grandparent), and that you have lived your life so far without anyone ever telling you that you are wrong. You need to learn that disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about disagreeing with me. I don't mind criticism at all if it's rational and discussed in a polite civilized manner. It's about the way that user handled the situation and did everything they could to have it their way and construct artificial obstacles to their own success and basically wanting to call all the shots at the expense of me by flooding me with offensive, false and misleading comments that are mentioned above. Bionic (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bi-on-ic, again, I still see no issues after spending the past 15 mins looking through these diffs, and even ones you didn't link. There were no personal attacks as far as I could tell, everyone was, be it bluntly, civilly commenting on your points and not you as a person. The pings were legit and everything seems to check out ok. Ed6767 talk! 17:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

My views on Bi-on-ic's behavior are seen here. And like I noted there, "My notifying the editors I did doesn't run afoul the WP:Canvassing guideline. What [Bi-on-ic] did does, per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. What [Bi-on-ic] did was spam." Mathglot also tried to explain WP:Canvassing to him. He somehow thinks that my pinging editors who are involved so that they can weigh in on that move discussion is the same as him delivering notifications to random, uninvolved editors. It's not. And I already addressed the two pings I made in the first discussion, which did not involve pinging editors to any "poll." He does not understand what WP:Canvassing is. And he needs to understand what it is before he does it again. I'm not getting any further involved in this ridiculous AN report. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If there were a tiny kernel of truth behind the OP's report, then this would be merely a frivolous and pointless report that was wildly exaggerated. But there isn't. It's a false report. Either there's a very serious misunderstanding of policy here for someone so senior, or I'm at a loss to account for their behavior.

This is creeping closer to WP:BOOMERANG territory for WP:DISRUPTION on article Talk pages based on misguided accusations of inappropriate behavior which do not exist.

Bi-on-ic ought to know this already based on their seniority, but what is worse, they seem incapable of understanding an explanation when given. Some of the misunderstanding borders on willful, such as this uncomprehending response of a simple explanation of appropriate notification, which reincorporates their previous (invalid) complaints about Flyer's pings.

I labeled Bi-on-ic's characterization a red herring (which is generous) and had a look at Bi-on-ic's recent behavior. I posted a neutrally worded question at this discussion (diff; perma) asking about their recent pings of 19 editors to that very same discussion, and was flabbergasted by their response. It is worth reproducing the brief exchange in its entirety:

Q & A about Bi-on-ic's notifications: excerpt from rev. 970616457 of the K.C. Talk page

Question about your July 28 notifications I wouldn't have bothered, Bi-on-ic, but since you brought it up, I do have a question about the canvassing issue. At #17:12, 29 July (now inside hatted portion; [perma] ), Paine Ellsworth wrote, Hopefully, the WP:CANVASSING guideline has been followed in this request, because the new closer (it will be someone else, not me) may take that into consideration. I noticed however that you (Bi-on-ic) notified at least these 19 editors on July 28 on their Talk pages. (Sample notification.) May I ask where you got that list of nineteen editors? I haven't been around since the beginning of this discussion, and there seem to be references to some other discussion which I'm unaware of, and that may well explain this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Flyer22 Frozen did it first, then in the above discussion 'Flyer22 Frozen' and 'Mathglot' stated that pinging and notifying other users for a discussion is a normal and a way of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Their words, not mine. Bionic (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That is what we are dealing with, here. Flyer has no culpability here, that is clear, and is demonstrated separately above. As Phil Bridger pointed out, Bi-on-ic seems to have no understanding of the difference between neutral criticism or explanations of policy on the one hand, and a personal attack. Possibly worse, is their apparent inability to comprehend a guideline, after it's been explained multiple times. In my opinion, at a minimum Bi-on-ic needs to be cautioned against bringing frivolous complaints to ANI to waste everybody's time. If it were up to me, I'd request an Admin to give a brief warning on their Talk page to read up on basic policy before slinging accusations around. If it happens again, I wouldn't step so lightly. Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just look at this, Flyer22 Frozen said to me "Go away". "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Isn't this the guideline? I follow the guideline and notified them and they're telling me to GO AWAY. This is outright incivility and insult. Since nobody here warned this user for their inappropriate behavior, the next step for them would be blatantly cursing me out and threaten me. They need to be cautioned. Bionic (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

'Mathglot', This doesn't concern you but yet again you jumped to his/her defense. You lined up a bunch of false offensive accusation in favor of your friend, Flyer22 Frozen here and wrote that my complaints are frivolous and pointless, this report is false, I'm incapable of understanding and you finished by saying Flyer22 Frozen, has 'no culpability here'. Basically portraying me as evil and her as an angel. Well, you just spent your time and energy here to be an advocate for another editor and tried your best to vindicate him/her, which is highly questionable and strange, but they just showed their true colors by reverting my ANI notify from their Talk Page and responding 'GO AWAY'. Bionic (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bi-on-ic, an editor telling you to go away is not uncivil. It's not friendly, but it's not uncivil, and given that you have just raised an ANI report on them that multiple editors are telling you is almost disruptively frivolous, friendliness would perhaps be a bit too much to expect. The person who needs to act with caution here is you - seriously, read what people are telling you, and reflect on it, before more people start mentioning the B word. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And yes, you did the right thing by notifying her; and yes, she's allowed to remove the notification. That's a non-event. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. I don't mind. The purpose of this report was to stand against inappropriate behavior & prevent personal attacks on other users. Fine by me. At the end of the day, I'm unaffected by this especially since that editor is just a simple user among hundreds of thousands, not even an admin, with that being said he/she can go away!... Bionic (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Bi-on-ic, you ought to affected by this. Ideally, you'd take on board what the people above have told you, and recognise that there are some gaps in your understanding of how things work. Seriously, read through this thread and reflect on what folk have said. You might be able to use it as an opportunity to learn and improve your practice. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Notifying French Wikipedia admins about sockpuppetry

Does anyone have French skills good enough to inform administrators on French Wikipedia about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moe szylak? Most of the socks have been active on French Wikipedia, and while the accounts are being globally locked, their edits over there often don't get reverted. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I speak French well but write it terribly. I normally just use Google Translate: "Les accomptes sockpuppet sur investigations/Moe szylak ce lien sur en.wiki peuvent être intéressants. Notez que je ne parle pas français, c'est via Google translate. Merci." A large portion of French speakers also speak good English, in my experience.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I took care of it here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted. But we already have a long enough list of sockpuppets (= "faux-nez") under this account, as you can see here. Hope this list can help (I suspect this account is mostly interested in subjects dealing with North African immigration to France and Belgium, as evidenced by the list of pages he tried to contribute to).
Thanks, anyway. Azurfrog (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us. Our list on fr.wp was not up to date, which allowed us to find out undetected accounts. We have a look on it. --d-n-f (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tous ensemble, tous ensemble! ——Serial 14:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Merci à tous! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Quoi de neuf, les francophones!—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I can definitely help, but not immediately, so I have to ask if this is time-sensitive? If not, make a request at my Talk page, or just move this discussion (or copy it) there. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Oh, I see; you've already posted there. Never mind. Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle default protection lengths

Right now, Twinkle's protection tool defaults to 2 days for edit and move protection, and 1 month for pending changes. Those are fairly fine I suppose (nobody's complained AFAIK) but I'd like to make the defaults smarter depending what on preset gets chosen. Things like arbitration enforcement, highly-visible templates, and others we typically default to indef should do so, but how about other defaults? Here's a quick starting off point:

• Misuse of user talk page: indef
• Arbitration enforcement: indef
• Highly-visible template: indef
• Move indef: indef
• BLP (semi or extended confirmed): 1 week
• BLP (PC): 2 months

The full list of presets is here:

Extended content

Full protection Generic Content dispute/edit warring Persistent vandalism User talk of blocked user Template protection Highly visible template Extended confirmed protection Arbitration enforcement Persistent vandalism Disruptive editing BLP policy violations Sockpuppetry Semi-protection Generic Persistent vandalism Disruptive editing Adding unsourced content BLP policy violations Sockpuppetry User talk of blocked user Pending changes Generic Persistent vandalism Disruptive editing Adding unsourced content BLP policy violations Move protection Generic Dispute/move warring Page-move vandalism Highly visible page

Any others that should change their defaults? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure this is particularly needed, but if doing so, I'd say the first four are absolutely fine. My other two are customised so much as to make changing somewhat counterproductive. PC BLP in particular seems a long way out - I don't think that's what we'd want to be encouraging as the default length, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's lengthy, to be sure, but followed from BLP=more than the default and the default for PC being 1 month. If the general sense is "nah, keep the BLPs at 2 days/1 month, then we can be done early here! ;) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  I personally would not increase the default lengths for BLPs. I'd be more likely to use a protection setting on a BLP, for obvious reasons, but, having decided to do so, I don't think I'd generally plan to increase the length relative to another type of article. Within reason, we should be encouraging protection lengths to be based on the actual duration (and severity) of identifiable disruption - rather than the nature of the article. But I'm far from the most active admin in protection, so if there really is a common practice of longer lengths for BLPs for the same level of disruption, then it's reasonable to increase the default. ~ mazca ^talk 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Currently at 25 requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

DRV

Hi folks, There are still two WP:DRV discussion that really could stand to have an admin close them. Both are fairly tricky. Both are way way past their due dates. All the regular closers at DRV have contributed I think... Hobit (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Assistance in creating AfD

I am trying to send Maria Ogedengbe to AfD, but the discussion page may not be vcreated beaise of a regex block.

Please will a frinedly admin create the discussion on my behalf?

The AfD rational is at Talk:Maria Ogedengbe#Intended AfD nomination rationale and is sufficent in my view to complete the nominaton Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: There's an active PROD on that page - do you intend to object to the PROD as controversial? If not, why not just let the PROD expire? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)