Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	36	36
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	1	1	2
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	12	30	42
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (56 out of 8272 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ogaden 2024-08-18 22:00 indefinite edit,move Long term disruptive editing and sock puppetry. Semi PP not effective. Going back to EC. Ad Orientem Ukrainian conscription crisis 2024-08-18 20:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Draft:Kelly Cooney Cilella 2024-08-18 20:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Freedom of panorama (US only) 2024-08-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2547 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Alumni 2024-08-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hamad City 2024-08-18 12:39 2025-08-18 12:39 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree Battle of Zakho 2024-08-18 11:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Iraqi–Kurdish conflict 2024-08-18 11:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Nabatieh attack 2024-08-18 10:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Palestine 2024-08-18 10:27 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq King of New Age 2024-08-18 09:54 2024-09-18 09:54 create Repeatedly recreated Johnuniq 2024 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election 2024-08-17 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jihad Mughniyah 2024-08-16 21:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Draft:Frank Guiller 2024-08-16 19:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Pokrovsk offensive 2024-08-16 19:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Ad Orientem List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023-2024 2024-08-16 17:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Newsletter draft 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Message 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Coordinators instructions 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Invite 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/invite 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024 2024-08-16 15:54 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Harriet Sandburg 2024-08-16 12:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Fluff My Life 2024-08-16 02:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Template:Image Comics 2024-08-16 02:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Sadly Never After 2024-08-16 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Jessica (Rick and Morty) 2024-08-16 02:36 2024-11-16 02:36 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident 2024-08-15 20:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIPA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Ukrainian occupation of Kursk Oblast 2024-08-15 20:33 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Wikipedia:Moto E22i 2024-08-15 20:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Steps (pop group) 2024-08-15 19:41 2024-11-15 19:41 edit,move Persistent block evasion The Wordsmith Steps discography 2024-08-15 19:40 2024-11-15 19:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry The Wordsmith Gal Gadot 2024-08-15 14:22 2025-02-15 14:22 edit Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Sudzhansky District 2024-08-15 06:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Sudzha 2024-08-15 06:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Draft:Suman Kumar Mallick 2024-08-15 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Mz7 Real Malabar F.C. 2024-08-14 23:54 indefinite create Pppery Janata Dal (United) 2024-08-14 23:17 2026-08-14 23:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生

zscaler proxies

No such user raised a legitimate concern on my talk page. I have blocked Special:Contributions/165.225.192.0/18 because this is the zscaler proxy. NSU notes this has caused a moderate amount of collateral damage including to them. NSU states, "That range belongs to Zscaler which provides security and cloud services to several major companies, including, apparently, mine. This is a closed proxy that requires authentication and should not have been blocked." I placed this block because Wikipedia generally hard-blocks proxies, and zscaler is definitely a proxy. I've been following the lead of other administrators who have applied range blocks to other zscaler ip blocks. I've seen substantial anonymous vandalism from zscaler, too, though this can be dealt with via a soft block. I additionally have the concern that if we allow editing from zscaler, we may be implicitly endorsing their security and privacy stance (though this may be out of scope for any discussion)? So, my question: Based on current Wikipedia policies and best-practices, should we hard-block zscaler proxies? Should we soft-block zscaler proxies? --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a regular strong opponent of blocking Zscaler proxies for being proxies, and especially hardblocking them. They are used by really lots and lots of large corporations for security filtering, including plenty of 'Forbes 500' (or whatever) companies - large banks, drug companies, manufacturers. One only has to look at the contribs. I think even the FCC uses Zscaler. And the worst thing is that these are often highly educated, knowledgeable, good faith users. Zscaler is a reputable company, and this is a type of proxy I wouldn't call open. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, I'd agree that ZScaler probably aren't open proxies. There are only about 6 of these blocks if we want to undo them.

AmandaNP doesn't have great access to the internet right now, and has asked me to relay the following:

• I am definitely for an anon only block hence the coloweb block from the range i blocked. I think anything that obfuscates regardless of services should at least not allow account creation for the potential abuse of socks. Thats the whole reason i made the colo template SQL^{Query me!} 01:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I tend to think the idea of "anything that obfuscates" is a bit of a red herring, especially in modern times. When someone hops onto their mobile IP address, is that really indicating some sort of 'true' origin? We don't block all mobile addresses. When it comes to Zscaler, it basically acts like just another ISP proxy, most of which regularly 'obfuscate'. I've no objections if some admin thinks a range needs an anonblock - like any range there will always be some vandalism - but I do object to blocking Zscaler because it's a closed proxy. We shouldn't be using the {blocked proxy} template either, since it's not really something you can turn off. And like I said above, and the block of NSU demonstrates, I think hardblocking Zscaler is usually really detrimental to Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Address or range	Blocking Admin	Block reason
104.129.196.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Yamla	{{blocked proxy}}: zscaler
104.129.192.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	KrakatoaKatie	{{colocationwebhost}}: <!-- Zscaler -->
194.65.37.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Yamla	{{blocked proxy}}: zscaler
185.46.212.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Ivanvector	Extremely spammy {{colocationwebhost}}, relaxing settings due to collateral impact <!-- Zscaler --> {{checkuserblock-wide}}
165.225.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	AmandaNP	{{colocationwebhost}}: <!-- ZScaler -->
165.225.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Yamla	{{blocked proxy}}: zscaler

SQL^{Query me!} 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

SQL, did you find that by searching the block log for zscaler? I have occasionally run in to proxy blocks that don't mention zscaler, but which clearly are when I do an IP lookup. But, I'll keep my eyes open for those as I patrol the unblock requests, once we come to a consensus. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, Yep. SQL^{Query me!} 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I should expand some. I suppose, my main rationale for not calling it an open proxy would be that it is generally unavoidable. It's more of an antivirus and content filtering service, and isn't intended to be used to mask one's actual ip or identity. SQL^{Query me!} 22:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Although this is not the primary intention, it does serve to mask one's actual IP and is used by vandals to avoid blocks. What are your thoughts on soft-blocking (preventing people from editing unless they sign in with an account)? I believe you are opposed to hard-blocking, correct? --Yamla (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, Yes, I think soft blocking is more appropriate in these instances. Unless there's abuse / etc that would warrant a hardblock. SQL^{Query me!} 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes zscaler a reputable company? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Without wanting to turn into their PR person, I'd say it's the scale, depth, and quality of their services. I'd suggest browsing their website to read about some of their partnerships. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based only on the block log for 185.46.212.0/23 (because I don't have any other notes) I suppose I blocked that range because of one or a small number of users creating throwaway promotional SPAs in a short period of time, which would be why I would instruct ACC to disallow requests from the range, although I changed my mind four minutes later and converted to a softblock, so maybe the abuse was from unrelated anons. Was that someone running a spam operation from a legit Zscaler instance, or was one of their servers hacked and running an open proxy? I don't know, I guess it doesn't really matter. FWIW I usually do hardblock open proxies, but I only ever come across them when investigating reports of abuse, and only decide on block settings after checking for collateral and any good-faith accounts that need IPBE. On an abusive proxy I usually don't find any. If the proposal is to immediately lift all Zscaler blocks, I disagree (at least this one is not blocked just because it's a Zscaler range), but if we want to suggest that Zscaler ranges should only be softblocked and covert any current hardblocks, I'd go along with that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just popping in to note that I did not place the original block on the range above – I changed it to a soft block after (I think) someone emailed Arbcom. I don't think these ranges should be hard blocked, but that particular range has a lot of anon vandalism and nonsense, and at least some Zscaler ranges are definitely being used for disruption. The soft blocks need to stay. Katie^talk 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• As the "original poster" I don't have much to add. Do we have a consensus to soft-block only those ranges? If so, someone please enact it. I'm able to post today only because I had to restart my computer and got assigned an unblocked Zscaler address - I have no control whatsoever over the matter, and presumably most other users.
  By the way, how come that https://www.whatismyip.com/ shows my "true" IP address and geolocation, while e.g. https://tools.keycdn.com/geo as well as, apparently, Wikipedia, display the Zscaler one? No such user (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is an X-Forwarded-For situation? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe we have a pretty clear consensus in this thread that zscaler proxies should be soft-blocked but should not be hard-blocked. That is, the blocks should not affect editors in good standing. On that basis, I'm going to modify the blocks identified in this thread so they are soft-blocks, and will search for other blocks on zscaler. @No such user: if you are hit by zscaler blocks again, please ping me and I'll take care of it, or refer back to this thread when posting your unblock request. Sorry this has caused you problems! I strongly believe this discussion can now be closed. Thanks, everyone. --Yamla (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanity check at Shooting of Jacob Blake

Shooting of Jacob Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone familiar with the topic weigh in on my insistence that the warrants not (yet) be included? To me, it's a clear WP:BLPPRIVACY issue as no RS have stated that the warrants are the reason for the arrest. RS say explicitly that they don't know ([1]). Before I continue and potentially use tools, I thought I should check in with fellow admins and calibrate my current position wrt others' thoughts. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert in the topic, and the content of the article is understandable changes rapidly, but the current version mentions the word "warrant" only once, in the context of Blake being under an arrest warrant for drunk driving. This statement is sourced, the info is in the sources, and they look reliable to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin but I weighed in on the talk page since you asked. As I said there, I don't think "reason for the arrest" is the only reason why it's likely to be relevant, it seems to me it's almost definitely going to be discussed eventually, now that we know the police we informed there was an alert. But as I also said, this seems to me to be a case where it doesn't matter if we wait a few days while things clear up, the main reason I've refrained from commenting until now. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, Buffaboy just did a good deed by reverting this edit and this one. User:Jd1schroeder was warned months ago about AP and BLP sanctions, but that doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. They also went on to post this, which I reverted--it's a forum post, but in the worst way. I warned them, and I hope that's enough--I'm holding back from the block button, but I am tempted. Maybe some of you can judge whether a topic ban is already warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on the editor's history, both in conduct and in receiving warnings, I think a rather broad topic ban is in order, covering both American politics and current events in the United States of political significance generally. If there is no objection, I will inform them forthwith. BD2412 T 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban based on WP:ARBAP2 then? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The editor has been advised of the limitations governing edits in this area before. BD2412 T 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have informed them of the topic ban, of indefinite duration. I suppose we can revisit the question in six months, if they edit productively in other areas during that time. BD2412 T 19:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have the feeling that a WP:NOTHERE block may be in their future as well. They seem to be here to push a narrative. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha, RickinBaltimore, you'll have to block all of "them", if there really is a "we". BTW right after I posted here I read this, so there certainly is a kind of "we". Yeah, I certainly appreciate the topic ban, but NOTHERE is more than applicable. That's the block I typically apply to "Wikipedia is a bunch of leftwing/rightwing/centerwing fascists/globalists/communists" editors. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, after a week-long hiatus, Jd1schroeder has resumed pushing a POV on Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @El C: please imposing 1RR for Shooting of Jacob Blake article and a editnotice regarding American politics sanctions because it was prone to distruptive editing by any users. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Declined, for now. I think the article is too active right now for 1RR to be immediately useful. El_C 23:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      • But 1RR needs to be important because there are indications that other users reverting any edits more than 1RR which can be constituted as vandalism for me. At least, please impose Use American English template in that article in order to prevent any users that changing spelling from American to British/Commonwealth spelling that be incorrect for US subject because I will prepared to add notice American English spelling in talk page. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought about reverts and vandalism. Yes, American English should be the order the day — I think that's already assumed, so no need to preempt (unless I'm missing something). El_C 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
          • @El C: Ok, thank you so much. I hope you can add American English notice in the article because I already added it on talk page. Best regards. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Sure, why not?  Done. El_C 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been nearly 24 hours and it does seem Blake's warrants will need to be mentioned. I am of the opinion there existence should be mentioned (eventually) but not necessarily their content. I'll back down on the rigidity of my stance as RS are now talking about them more. Now we have issues with Rittenhouse's victims' pasts as well. And Rittenhouse's hobbies and stuff are being brought up. BLP should be firmly enforced here, imo. Please keep an eye on this if you can spare the time. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW I should clarify when I said it doesn't matter since it's going to be resolved eventually, what I meant was I would encourage those arguing so hard for inclusion to just wait if it's necessary. While BLP issues apply in all directions so the exclusion of vital information even if it is negative to JB does actually have BLP implications (since it affects the police officers all of who are still alive), the inclusion of negative information does have more significant BLP implications. Therefore IMO it's fine to defer to concerns that the sourcing isn't yet sufficient if they are widely held and exclude the information until the sourcing is clearer cut. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Jd1schroeder has been editing the talk page there in violation of the topic ban imposed by BD2412. I've closed their topics and reverted in some places, but I doubt that will mean anything.--Jorm (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've given the user a 48 hour block for the obvious disregard of the topic ban. I was bordering on WP:NOTHERE, however I'm giving them one final length of rope here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:The C of E and DYK

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

---

The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The C of E is a prolific contributor to DYK. Mixed in with their often unobjectionable contributions are a number of hooks (for the non-regulars: DYK hooks are the sentences that appear on the main page section WP:DYK) that are inflammatory in one way or another. These include;

• Inflammatory references to the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute: 1 (discussed here), 2 (discussed here and here),
• Potentially inflammatory references to The Troubles: 3 (discussed here); 4 (see original hook proposed); 5 (discussed here; included a contentious request that it be held for a specific date); 6 (also discussed here; also included a contentious request that it be held for (the same) specific date).
• Describing Muhammad as "that Arab Thief": 7 (discussed here)
• Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice: 8 (discussed here; see also references to a 2014 hook with the same issue); 9
• An attempt to put the N-word on the main page: 10 (discussed here);
• Attempts to put other slurs on the main page: 11 (discussed here), 12 (discussed here)
• Other nominations of contentious political material: 13, 14.

For the record, I have no issues with someone writing about contentious topics and getting on the main page. The question is whether potentially offensive content is being used to educate the reader, or for shock value or to push a POV, per WP:GRATUITOUS. In my opinion, The C of E's proposals have often fallen short in this respect. Furthermore, when these hooks have been challenged, The C of E has been obdurate to a degree, refusing to modify their hooks in any way, and often attempting to unilaterlly reverse reviewer decisions (see the various nomination templates linked above). They have been cautioned for this repeatedly, but continue to ignore consensus in this respect; the latest such incident occurred this week [2]. Their tendency to nominate inflammatory hooks has not gone away either, despite a considerable number of editors, including many admins, expressing concerns about it (again, see discussions above). This is currently also being discussed at AE, but the scope of that article is limited to the Troubles. The links above show this is a wider problem that has consumed far too much community time. Opinion has historically been divided on how to approach this, so I'm offering multiple proposals. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Amended to a single proposal, per below. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Reviewers' veto

Any independent reviewer may veto hooks nominated by The C of E, without further opportunity for appeal. If a hook is vetoed, The C of E must offer a substantially different alternative, or have the nomination may be rejected.

• Support, as proposer. I think this is the minimum necessary to prevent the constant cycle of disruption at DYK as documented above. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per Vanamonde. Agreed that this is a bare minimum, given the extensive history of disruption at DYK (some of which I've been dragged into first hand). More than enough rope has been given – I'm afraid we've reached the end of it. Open to escalating restrictions when necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the previous history of unrejecting rejected hooks despite reviewer consensus, this proposal makes sense. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, given the problems on The C of E's nomination pages, but more is needed. There should also be a restriction preventing The C of E from any editing of his own hooks in the Prep areas, given regular problems in that regard as well. I will be adding a second proposal to that effect below. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose that gives anyone who doesn't like me the chance to block any hook they don't like on a personal basis as opposed to if that hook actually follows DYK rules. No one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion, this would be completely unfair on me because all it will take is one person to disregard the free and open concept we have on DYK, and it has the potential to be misused as censorship for any articles that don't meet someones personal taste. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"No one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion – that's incorrect. There is precedent for even more severe sanctions than what is being proposed here. That's the yardstick we should use when this behaviour inevitably continues. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a complete ban, not a ban on individual topics and freedom of choice on what I can nominate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

My point stands – still more severe restrictions than what is being proposed here. It seems you're making a mountain out of a molehill. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So does mine, I feel this proposal would do nothing more than allow for censorship based on personal feelings rather than any issues with hooks that are made in full accordance with DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. You claimed (incorrectly) that "[n]o one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion". I just provided an example of an editor who did have their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in an even more severe fashion. I don't see how your point can still stand when its entire premise is wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"in this fashion". Doesn't mean I meant as a whole. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You're just splitting hairs here – nice diversionary tactic. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The C of E is a prolific contributor with almost 500 DYKs to his credit, the vast majority being unproblematic. His hooks are often chosen to startle and garner as many views as possible, and he is an enthusiastic contributor to April Fools day hook sets. I think this proposal is unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, in several instances the goal of "startling" has rubbed off several editors in a negative way, who have expressed concerns that his preferred "startling" hooks are doing more harm than good. While a full topic ban from DYK is extreme and probably unwarranted at this time given that The C of E has indeed proposed numerous uncontroversial hooks, given prior problematic behavior, it's clear that something needs to be done. Is it really worth it to get as many views as possible when the end result is much drama and offended feelings? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  You're assuming I'm doing it for a laugh, it's actually done mostly because of either the desire to get more eyes on the article to improve it or to feature a subject that likely would get overlooked because too many people go hand-wringing about it saying "ooh, we can't edit that, it's too controversial". Yet it feels like every time I explain what I am doing, people ignore whatever I say because of some pre-conceived notion about me, which is often exacerbated by inflammitory/loaded language used. I am grateful there are a handful of people who are willing to listen to me though. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  "[P]eople ignore whatever I say because of some pre-conceived notion about me" – your user page does openly state that you're a "Unionist" (i.e. biased towards one side of the Northern Ireland conflict). It also states you "believe in the re-establishment of the British Empire", believe that the "rightful" "owners" of Hong Kong are the British, and that you oppose marriage equality. If you don't want people to have a pre-conceived notion about you, then perhaps don't brazenly show off these views on your user page. If you insist, then accept the consequences that come with it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Bordering on WP:NPA there I think. What's on my userpage is of no relevance to what I edit on. I have already shown time and again I have edited about subjects which conflict with those of my own views but often I find, people just don't want to hear about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not at all. I'm merely quoting off your user page, which is of utmost relevance as to how you edit articles and nominate DYK hooks (i.e. in violation of WP:NPOV). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Can you please explain then why you requested a July 11th date request for Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Orange Order, when the date is a known sectarian date where, to quote our article on Eleventh Night, Symbols of Irish nationalism/republicanism (such as the Irish tricolour), and symbols of Catholicism, are often burnt on the bonfires? Or why you were insistent on running a hook about Muhammad being called a "thief" in the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination in spite of multiple editor objections, and only "begrudgingly" accepted a compromise hook when it was clear that there was no chance that the Muhammad hook was going to be allowed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  At the time, I saw it as no different as running a national flag or anthem on a national day as the Orange Order are most closely identified with the 12th. If you check the nomination, I did also give the option not to and I did propose the 1st to coincide with the Julian Calendar date which I figured would be less controversial. I did mention [[Eleventh Night] so the reviewer knew it was related to Orange Order commemorations but they thought it appropriate and they chose to promote it for that date. As for Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, the reason was because the hook was factual according the the article and sources. That's what I always base my hooks on, the DYK rules and not subjective opinions. Plus it is also to uphold the key principle of WP:NOTCENSORED which is often trampled on. The reason why objected for so long was a combination of the two, that the opinions were being made on personal views rather than factuality and that this mostly unknown hymn was being censored despite being a product of its time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  The issue that has been mentioned here and elsewhere (including the AE discussion and at WT:DYK) isn't necessarily WP:NOTCENSORED but rather WP:GRATUITOUS. That is, if the "sensational" or "offensive" material serves an encyclopedic purpose, and consensus in the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination was that the Muhammad hook did not. As mentioned at WP:GRATUITOUS, Wikipedia is not censored, but WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to post offensive or sensationalist material just for the sake of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cwmhiraeth, with respect, every bit of that is a non-sequitur. If most of his hooks are uncontroversial, they will be unaffected by this proposal. If hooks are made hooky through the inclusion of gratuitously offensive material, then they are going about garnering views in entirely the wrong way. And you've seen the absurd lengths to which he will go before agreeing to change a hook; how is that in any way productive? Or are you seriously arguing the hooks I've highlighted above were all fine? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: It's a slippery slope. Once you start making restrictions on somebody's activities, it's downhill all the way. My view is that most of the links you give are pretty innocuous. In several cases the hooks concerned were reviewed and promoted before falling victim to what I call the "shock, horror brigade". These people express their views in a forthright way, everyone else retreats behind the parapet and the hook is pulled. I see the C of E is now topic barred from Irish issues, and I think your proposal here will make him realise that he must toe the line in future. (There's an awful lot of mixed metaphors in this post!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cwmhiraeth, We've worked together successfully for a long time, so I will risk being blunt. There's a world of difference between controversial content presented to educate the reader, and controversial content presented purely for shock value. If that difference isn't obvious to you, I think you need to explore the history of these topics more carefully. I am no stranger to controversial content; I write about politics, and probably half my DYK hooks have been about potentially contentious material. I have never had an uninvolved admin tell me my hooks were inappropriate. Why? Because it's entirely possibly write about these topics in a way that prioritizes reader understanding over shock value; The C of E simply chooses not to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose In looking at the DYK's: Inflammatory references to the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute: 1 (discussed here), 2 (discussed here and here) This is actually reliably sourced, so no issue, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Potentially inflammatory references to The Troubles: 3 (discussed here); 4 (see original hook proposed); 5 (discussed here; included a contentious request that it be held for a specific date); 6 (also discussed here; also included a contentious request that it be held for (the same) specific date). Again - these hooks are reliably sourced, and Wikipedia isn't Censored, so no issue here either. Describing Muhammad as "that Arab Thief": 7 (discussed here) He's reporting what a reliable source said, not inserting his opinion. For the record I wouldn't have used that source, but it's reliable and Wikipedia's not censored. This is presented very much out of context and is now starting to look like Cherry picking. Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice: 8 (discussed here; see also references to a 2014 hook with the same issue); 9 Yet again, reliably sourced. For the record, I'm a Christian and found this to be hilarious! Again, Wikipedia's not censored. An attempt to put the N-word on the main page: 10 (discussed here) He's calling the geographic feature by it's reliably sourced names. This is also taken out of context and looks like cherry picking and is starting to resemble the nom's taste not matching C of E's. Attempts to put other slurs on the main page: 11 (discussed here), 12 (discussed here) Again, calling a geographic feature what it's reliably called in Ireland is perfectly ok, remember we're not censored over here Other nominations of contentious political material: 13, 14. 13 is a reliably sourced event. This is a non-issue. 14 is the only nomination without a reliable source (in the DYK Hook) that fails to show the source comparing themselves to JESUS. TL, DR: The nom is pulling the hooks out of context and making this issue look worse than what it is. I oppose any attempt to censor or remove the ability to appeal from C of E. The only thing I can support is a big aquatic animal be sent to the nom. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty

• Comment Note that WKWWK's argument is a duplicate to his other, below, which itself has been comprehensively destroyed by Joe Roe and Alanscottwalker. ——Serial 15:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This could be a decent way forward to minimize disruption --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I remember Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream. Anything that avoids similar problems is welcome. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per OP. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per OP and given the developments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as C of E's repeatedly arguing over hooks has become disruptive.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Will curb some of the main abuses noted in this thread and previously elsewhere. --Jayron32 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It might be worth clarifying the restriction wording to explicitly state whether third-party appeals of a veto of a hook are permitted. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  The intent is that they are not. A veto is a veto. The purpose of the restriction is to short-circuit the endless bickering that ensues when The C of E proposes a contentious hook and then absolutely refuses to amend it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  👍 Thanks, that was my guess but figured it was worth bringing up preemptively to head off potential disputes at the pass. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is really overkill. --evrik ^(talk) 02:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• More like really overdue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as this addresses the main issue raised in this whole thread and will avoid overly provocative hooks on sensitive topics.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This would solve the DYK problem with a minimum of bureaucracy. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Proposal: The C of E may not edit his own hooks in Prep

The C of E may not edit hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area. If a change is desired, The C of E can request it at WT:DYK.

• Support as proposer. Too many times, The C of E has made controversial edits to his own hooks in Prep, and caused major problems. Even when warned that a line had been crossed, it continued. If a change is important, it can be requested at the DYK talk page, and if it is reasonable and not controversial, another editor can make the change. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BlueMoonset. This should be common sense for anyone, but The C of E is the only user I'm aware of who has done so after a warning on a potentially contentious hook. He always has the option of asking for a change at ERRORS or WT:DYK, or asking for a hook to be pulled until any disagreement is resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per above. This behaviour has gone on for far too long. It's about time we put a stop to this. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is already a discussion about making this a full DYK rule at WT:DYK. This discussion is redundant when the discussion should be going on there, rather than just singling out me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose In looking at the DYK's: Inflammatory references to the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute: 1 (discussed here), 2 (discussed here and here) This is actually reliably sourced, so no issue, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Potentially inflammatory references to The Troubles: 3 (discussed here); 4 (see original hook proposed); 5 (discussed here; included a contentious request that it be held for a specific date); 6 (also discussed here; also included a contentious request that it be held for (the same) specific date). Again - these hooks are reliably sourced, and Wikipedia isn't Censored, so no issue here either. Describing Muhammad as "that Arab Thief": 7 (discussed here) He's reporting what a reliable source said, not inserting his opinion. For the record I wouldn't have used that source, but it's reliable and Wikipedia's not censored. This is presented very much out of context and is now starting to look like Cherry picking. Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice: 8 (discussed here; see also references to a 2014 hook with the same issue); 9 Yet again, reliably sourced. For the record, I'm a Christian and found this to be hilarious! Again, Wikipedia's not censored. An attempt to put the N-word on the main page: 10 (discussed here) He's calling the geographic feature by it's reliably sourced names. This is also taken out of context and looks like cherry picking and is starting to resemble the nom's taste not matching C of E's. Attempts to put other slurs on the main page: 11 (discussed here), 12 (discussed here) Again, calling a geographic feature what it's reliably called in Ireland is perfectly ok, remember we're not censored over here Other nominations of contentious political material: 13, 14. 13 is a reliably sourced event. This is a non-issue. 14 is the only nomination without a reliable source (in the DYK Hook) that fails to show the source comparing themselves to JESUS. TL, DR: The nom is pulling the hooks out of context and making this issue look worse than what it is. I oppose any attempt to censor or remove the ability to appeal from C of E. The only thing I can support is a big aquatic animal be sent to the nom. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty

@Wekeepwhatwekill: This is an absolute non-argument. The existence of reliable source does make something a good idea. Recognising that we shouldn't throw the n-word around on our front page is not a question of "taste". – Joe (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill's arguments make little to no sense. At DYK, you are submitting words to other people for their review, revision, and rejection, complaining about censorship is absurd. As for the 'it's sourced' argument, that simplistic argument is rejected even on articles -- so more so, the Main Page. Most the sourced stuff in the world never gets to the main page, the main page is designed to weed out most the sourced stuff in the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Joe_Roe .....Unless the "N" word is actually the name of the place. Then, as long as a reliable source exists to prove that it's the correct name of that place, person or organization for example Nigger_(dog), Rock_N_Roll_Nigger, The_Nigger_of_the_'Narcissus', just to name a few. Alanscottwalker I totally agree that anything submitted to DYK, or really, anywhere in Wikipedia is subject to review, revision or rejection. That's not what I'm opposing. I'm opposing Vanamonde93's presenting this case to make it look like The_C_of_E is making bad nom after bad nom after bad nom. Only one of them have no source and thus are a bad nom, the rest are fine, and in fact, pique interest enough to get the reader to click on the link and read the article, which is the whole point of DYK's. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 16:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per OP and given the developments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems reasonable. Really this should be strongly discouraged for most users. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's common sense not to do this but C of E has repeatedly done so and so there needs to be a formal restriction.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per OP --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This should be a rule for everyone. --evrik ^(talk) 02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This eliminates another way disruption could occur and minimizes wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban from DYK

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

---

The C of E (talk · contribs) is prohibited from any form of participation in the Wikipedia:Did you know process.

• Support as proposer. See my comment in #General comments above: CofE's disruptive behaviour is too sustained and deliberately motivated for "bespoke" sanctions that still let him participate there. It is unfair to expect other volunteers to spend their time making sure he behaves. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is far too extreme. You are pointing out 15 cherry picked hooks out of 480+ DYKs (most of which have been explained both by me and @Wekeepwhatwekill:) as grounds to ban me completely. That is completely unfair and so off base to go for the nuclear option when I have already been punished enough I think. And with regards to the above, I do also get involved in the editathons that put DYK as a secondary factor when they are on. Please check my contributions on Awaken the Dragon, Women in Red and the British Isles destubathons. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC){{}}
• Strong support – per Joe Roe. Seems this is the only effective way of putting a stop to this disruptive behaviour, which has no sign of abating given The C of E's utter unwillingness to change. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm prepared to make an agreement to change if you really think it is that bad. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is, C of E, that people have been advising you as to changing your approach for some time; the fact that you are now willing to consider it when under duress suggests that you haven't been listening to what those others have been telling you. ——Serial 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  • • • Is it not that what you were seeking for me to change my behaviour from now on, well I am saying I am willing to listen to what is being proposed and I am willing to change. Please, let me have the chance to prove it. I have already been punished, this is overkill. All I want is to be able to help improve the project but it just seems no matter what I say, no-one will listen. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment -- I am inclined to this because the argument made here again that C of E does so much, actually seems a serious root of the problem, as I discussed more fully above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC) That should read, "below." (in the comments section). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the various comments by Joe Roe and Alanscottwalker above. The truth that Wikipedia is not censored is not an argument against good editorial judgment, which is sorely lacking in the cases described above. The main page should not be a venue to be deliberately and repeatedly provocative, and DYK should not be run using a clickbait mentality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but if and only if there is not consensus for the above any of the other proposals (reviewer veto, restriction from editing hooks in prep, and partial TBAN). The disruption is severe enough that something needs to be done about it. I think the combination of a reviewer veto, the inability to mess with hooks in prep, and a Troubles TBAN should take care of it, and so I would prefer trying those to a more severe sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Totally oppose Per all my reasons listed above. None of the sources were mis-represented. Vanamode93's argument is a bunch of cherry picked stuff to make it look like the C of E is creating bad DYK's, and he isn't. He's creating DYK's that actually make you want to click on them and read them and also introduce reliably sourced facts that weren't known before hand. Finally, this is being tried both at AE and here. AE's already ended their trial, close this prolonged case of one personal taste not suiting another's , it's not right to try someone on two fronts. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 16:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as second choice to partial topic ban proposed below. If these hooks (which are allegedly provocative in order to make people think and learn) covered various viewpoints, then I'd be opposing here. But they are all emphasising pro-Unionist, pro-Christian, homophobic, etc, positions. That we have an AE result of "indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" shows how obvious it is that C of E needs to be kept away from abusing DYK to emphasise their own political and religious positions - the AE result presumably fixes the NI issue, but not the rest. Whether, as some argue, the statements in the hooks are factual and sourced is not the issue, nor is censorship. The issue is POV-pushing and good editorial judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Modified, see underscore. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 15 out of 480+ and I am to be hung, drawn and quartered when it comes to DYK? How about my sports hooks? Or those about heraldry? Am I POV pushing in those too? I have already said: I do not write articles with the intent to push any POV, I write them to try to improve Wikipedia and get topics read about. I have already said above, I am prepared to change if given the opportunity. Please, let me try. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You could just be astonishingly clueless over proposing one-sided DYKs that support your political and religious POV (as clearly espoused on your user page). But, AGF notwithstanding, having read all of this and the AE report (where I saw a couple of shocking examples that really made me pause for breath), I do not believe that is the case. You *have* been abusing the Wikipedia front page (you know, the most high profile page we have) to push provocative hooks in support of your political and religious POV. The question now is not what's fairest to you, but what's best for the front page - and I think it will be better, on balance, without you. I could support an appeal against the topic ban in due course, but only if replaced by a more refined topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • What am I able to do to change your mind? You want me to have a change of tack on articles I nominate, fine I'll be prepared to go for that. The ones highlighted are a tiny tiny fraction of the successful 480+ I have written. So I can't be a complete rotten apple (no matter what people may think of me). All I ever wanted to do on here is improve the project. I love DYK and I don't know what to do without it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • You don't need to change my mind, it will be consensus that decides it, not me. If enough people are convinced by your responses here, the proposal will not pass. Saying that, I did suggest a more refined topic ban, so I'll see if I can propose one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Really? This is complete overkill. The C of E has presented many uncontentious DYK entries. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No DYKs regarding religion and/or politics and we're good. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overkill. A complete topic ban isn't necessary for a majority unproblematic contributor to DYK entries. Other than a few incidents, all involving issues where C of E may have a bias towards certain views and cannot remain neutral, such as in religion and/or politics (especially of the UK, elsewhere usually unproblematic). Following the AE consensus, and this, I will only support this option if C of E cannot remain neutral in future DYK entries. Ed talk! 20:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I skimmed through CoE's talk page where you can find many/most of the DYK credits that CoE has accumulated. Many of COE's DYKs are non-controversial (lots of sports, trivia) and some of the more 'tabloid-esqu' ones (like cocklake) are meh. Given the topic ban at AE, and the majority of acceptable DYK contributions, I can't find justification for a blanket DYK ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A full topic ban sounds too much at this time given that The C of E has proposed hooks outside the problematic areas that were uncontroversial. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose exactly how far do we intend to go with this pile-on? One sanction has just been imposed. Give it some time to work. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• oppose too far without trying something lesser first — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disproportionate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, too broad.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal: partial topic ban from DYK

I propose an alternative to a full topic ban from DYK, and to recognize the large number of DYK hooks by User:The C of E that have not been problematic. User:The C of E is topic banned from all DYK activity relating to political and religious viewpoints expressed at their user page (as of this revision). So, essentially, no DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, LGBTQ. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: Allow appeal for a softening of the ban in six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So you propose I get punished even further than the WP:AE decision? Despite the fact that the majority of my hooks aside of sport or heraldry are on Christian hymns and British politics as that's an area that interests me (of which the majority had no objections). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not about punishment, and it's not about providing you with a platform to do whatever you're interested in - it's about protecting the Wikipedia front page from abuse. I've seen the damage that political and religious intolerance and bigotry can do, and reducing that is my priority here. I really don't care if you think it's harsh. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • And are you trying to accuse me of doing those things? Because I can assure you, I most certainly do not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Any pushing of political or religious viewpoints, especially narrower ones, can contribute to it. Even stating a Christian belief as factual in Wikipedia's voice, for example, makes us look less tolerant and more bigoted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Far better idea than the complete ban from DYK, which is excessive. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - these are areas where it'll be hard for C of E to remain neutral. In other areas, C of E has been an unproblematic and constructive DYK writer. Ed talk! 20:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Boing's proposal seems like a decent way forward --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the topic ban from Ireland-related topics, that should help, but his behavior in certain other subjects (in particular politics and religion) has been very worrying. A partial topic ban from nominating such articles sounds like a decent compromise as opposed to a full ban, which sounds excessive at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support . I don't pay attention to DYK hooks but I am shocked to see from this discussion that the editor added content that referred to Oscar Wilde as a queer and a fag and to Mohammed as "that Arab thief." Something is very very wrong here. Such outrageous content should never have been added to the main page. It is enough for the editor to be indeffed or the entire DYK category to be abolished imo.Smeat75 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support as a reasonable alternative if there is no consensus for a full topic ban from DYK. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Some of the examples given here, (i.e. "that Arab Thief", the N-word) I can see why people consider offensive. Others ("1946 Londonderry Borough Council election") I can't see what the issue is, but I'm not attune to irish politics, so maybe I'm just not hearing the dog whistle. My own experience was with The Lincoln Project, where I discovered that my use of "RINO" (as a direct quote) in a hook was offensive. Well, OK, I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's what reviews are for, so no problem changing it. Which brings me to, this seems more like a problem with the reviewers than the submitter. If the reviewers are letting through stuff that shouldn't be allowed, there needs to be remedial training for the reviewers. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Apparently what happened is that the Londonderry election nomination (and another similar nomination a few years earlier) were requested to appear on 12th July or Twelfth Night, which admittedly I'm not very familiar with but is apparently a controversial date in Northern Ireland that is associated with Unionism. In addition, there was the use of the term "Londonderry" itself, which according to our article on the Derry/Londonderry name dispute is quite controversial and considered sectarian. Add to the fact that The C of E mentions being a Unionist on his user page, the behavior has led many editors at WT:DYK, whether fairly or unfairly, to believe that he is intentionally pushing a pro-Unionist viewpoint on at least some of his Ireland hooks. Given that he has now been topic-banned from Irish-related topics, this point may be moot anyway, but this comment is just to provide some context. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the politics of Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt in my mind that CofE has been deliberately abusing the Wikipedia front page to promote his own sectarian position for quite some time. His user page makes it clear beyond doubt that he's a hardline Unionist (and it's not just the Unionist userbox itself), so there's no possibility that two separate pro-Unionist DYK nominations both requested for Orange Day were by coincidence. As for religion and LGBTQ, his user page (before he just removed most of the userboxes) made the strength of his beliefs on those subjects very clear (including that he's a Creationist and opposes same-sex marriage). And he's produced DYK's pushing Christianity as fact, insulting Islam, and containing homophobic slurs, so I think that's enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Derry issue is a lot more audible than a dog whistle. I can't help but think that part of the reason that C of E's hooks get through is because editors from outside Britain and Ireland are not picking up on how inflammatory what he does is. Sectarian provocation on The Twelfth has killed people. Even just his user page and signature: in many countries plastering your page with flags and ending every comment with the equivalent of "God Save the Queen!" might be seen as benign patriotism – in Britain it has more sinister undertones. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to imply there but I don't like it. I am trying to brush off all the kicks I'm getting over the last few days but that one I object to. I give you the assurance there are no "Sinister undertones" as you put it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the implication was obvious: when your user page (until yesterday) is a garish collection of nationalist symbols, expresses your support for far-right political parties and the "re-establishment of the British Empire", and you spend your time trying to get racist and homophobic slurs and sectarian dog whistles onto the main page – you look like a bigot. If that's not the message you're trying to send, then you need to seriously reconsider your image and approach here. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support. I like the spirit of this restriction, but I'm concerned it will be tricky to enforce because the scope is sometimes tricky to define, and will lead to more bickering of the sort we have already seen in the discussions linked above and on this page. As such I think BlueMoonset's and my proposals are still necessary, even if this passes. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The combination of the politics and religion with his desire to startle readers isn't ideal. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• weak oppose - acknowledging an issue, but uneasy with the idea of basing it on someone's user page expression, as much as I disagree with much of it. Also don't think the case has been made for all of these topics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing this ban just because of the opinions expressed in those user boxes alone (though the totality of them screams intolerant right-wing nationalist to me), but because he's been abusing Wikipedia to promote them. That includes DYKs stating Christian beliefs as fact, insulting Islam, and containing homophobic slurs. I think that makes the case for those two topics, but obviously others can disagree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• [Non-admin vote] Support I had been aware for some time of The C of E's tendency to push 'politically incorrect' hooks onto the front page via DYK, but had given them the balance of the doubt as maybe trying to give DYK (and Wikipedia as a whole) a 'balance of flavours' (I'm sure I read somewhere that the WP editorship as a whole has a tendency to veer to the left, politically). However, the repeated attempts at inserting the Orange Day hooks make it clear that this is all about pushing their own beliefs, and it is logical to deduce that all their 'controversial' hooks are a pushing of their own views onto WP's main page (in a manner wholly unconcerned with WP's professed neutrality). Therefore something beyond the recent AE ruling is necessary. I will add that if this proposal passes and yet The C of E continues via other routes to push their views via DYK or other areas, I would support a WP:NOTHERE block, as per Boing's comment below. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Boing. However, I think six months before an appeal is a mere slap on the wrist, given the extensive history of the disruptive behaviour that goes back half a decade. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems disproportionate based on the behaviour detailed above, most of which I would call provocative rather than disruptive and some of which is neither. Fly with a sledgehammer territory. Would possibly support if the topic ban were more narrowly construed, but those categories are too broad. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as contrary to our policy, WP:CENSOR, which states clearly that "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." As C of E's submissions have been getting through the reviews and promotion process at DYK, this demonstrates that they are not completely beyond the pale.

The DYK process, by its nature, encourages new content to be presented in a provocative way and so there is a natural tension as editors strive to make the content interesting while it is not yet perfect. Editors are encouraged to be bold and so this requires some give and take as the overall consensus is established. Sanctioning is not helpful in this as it will tend to have a chilling effect and discourage participation.

For example, I recently objected to another DYK written by another editor and so caused it to be pulled from the mainpage. The matter is now being discussed on the article's talk page and so it goes. This is our normal editorial process. Right now, there's another DYK on the main page about an Irish politician. This was nominated by C of E and the hook has to do with Gaelic football. This doesn't seem especially exciting or controversial but then I'm not a follower of such games. It's all grist to our mill and we should keep it broad and open rather than narrow and intolerant.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Joe and Boing. My goodness, I know DYK had some problems (the rapid manner in which problematic hooks can end up on the main page being one of them) but I never would have guessed it was one specific editor deliberately attempting to push through divisive or offensive hooks. This needs to stop, because there's clearly no evidence that he'll do so on his own.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Support This is long overdue, as C of E has been made aware of his behavior many times and shown no willingness to change, repeatedly crying "WP:NOTCENSORED" (just like Andrew above me) when NOTCENSORED applies to content within articles, not to promoting content on the Main Page. A much more relevant guideline is WP:GRATUITOUS. Yes C of E is a prolific DYK contributor but there are many other editors with hundreds of DYKs to their name who have not had any of these repeated problems. I urge people who are unfamiliar with DYK to read Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_142#Using_the_"N"_word_multiple_times_in_a_hook and in particular Jayron32's comment This is a breeching experiment and no more, and as such, deserves no reason to be on the main page. Censorship doesn't come into play here, the intent is to get away with as much as one can, without regard for one's target audience. For that reason, it shouldn't be done. This is self-evidently "let's see how much we can get away with" which I think sums things up succinctly. C of E has a long history of doing this kind of thing, see the ANI thread where Iridescent remarked This editor has been playing this particular "let's see how many inflammatory terms I can slip onto the main page" game for the better part of a decade and the long list of examples here. My only concern this that C of E could try and game this restriction by arguing over whether a DYK really is political or religious, but with the total DYK ban looking unlikely to pass this is a reasonable compromise. (I also agree completely with Boing! in the comments section that C of E appears to be writing an article purely to see what DYK hook they can get out of it, which is entirely the wrong way around.)-- P-K3 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully this will curb the problematic DYKs without a full topic ban. 97198 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. As much as I have assumed good faith on this in the past, even including a hook regarding UUP politicians and Galeic football, which I passed for DYK and ran today but was later queried as possibly incendiary, the evidence does seem to have mounted that CofE is using WP:DYK as a WP:SOAPBOX for pushing particular points-of-view when it comes to religion and politics worldwide generally, not just concerning the UK and Northern Ireland. Boing's nomination above makes a lot of sense - we can keep CofE's contributions at DYK which do not reference politics or religion, but also restrict them from continuing the types of hooks which have invariably proven controversial. I also think this is separate and broader than the AE restriction, so this should still be closed with a definite decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This editor has long established a pattern of abusing the boundaries of WP:NOTCENSORED for the sole sake of being provocative and incendiary. It's time to stop. If this particular topic ban doesn't curb the problems, we can revisit something more restrictive in the future. --Jayron32 15:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I yield to your brilliant and eloquent argumentation.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Brevity is the soul of wit. --evrik ^(talk) 20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, not needed. He's already TBANed from troubles and the hook veto proposal is passing. This is just piling on sanctions from an alternate route.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• It actually is much needed. The TBan only covers the Troubles, and not religion and LGBTQ topics. The editor has a history of disruptive editing at DYK re the latter two topics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• 15 cherry picked hooks out of of 480+ is hardly what one could consider "disruptive". Besides, the majority of hymn and Christian articles I write are uncontroversial so I would suggest that if I am forced to get extra sanctions, that it not apply to Christian hymns at the least @Astral Leap:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• And you're the best judge as to whether you've been disruptive. Thankfully (and rightfully), the vast majority of the community here beg to differ. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• I am already on trial at WP:AE, so it seems a little unfair that I have to fight to defend myself here as well as there. I feel these particular examples are just a handful of 14 cherry picked hooks from my almost 500 DYKs which the majority had no objection to. I do feel I am being victimised here for editing in controversial topic areas which others dare to touch and because I try to keep the proposed hooks in accordance with the DYK rules rather than any personal opinion on it. The hooks are sometimes controversial because it says in WP:DYKHOOK to make the hook catchy and likely to draw in attention. But I give you my assurance, I have no intent to create any POV hooks. The hooks I make, I try to make according to what the sources say.
  I do feel that people do not want to listen to me whenever I respond to their allegations. For example, if they want to paint me as someone pushing a Northern Irish unionist POV, I raise the fact I have put Gerry Mullan (politician), an Irish nationalist politician, on DYK which ran with a hook that was far more political than any of the above and yet there was absolutely no comment on that, nor has there been since when I have brought it up. Please don't take away DYK from me, it is the one thing I live for in article creation and improvement on Wikipedia which makes what can be a dreary task fun and worthwhile. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Although I think you're now banned from the subject area, since you feel people aren't listening to you I'll make a quick comment. First, thank you for your work in expanding articles, including those of Northern Irish nationalist politicians where it was unproblematic.

  While I know very little about the subject area (for example I had no idea of what 12 July was until I read our article), to my mind there is no way "that Gerry Mullan was deselected by the Social Democratic and Labour Party for the Northern Ireland Assembly in favour of the man he replaced, who had retired seven months earlier?" is anywhere near as problematic or controversial as some or possibly all of the other Irish related hooks linked in the opening statement. Noting that you specifically said 'far more political than any of the above', I won't comment on the specific claim of whether it was 'far more political' since it could be said that some of the issues aren't really politics or go beyond politics or whatever.

  But what you said makes me think you don't understand why some of your DYK proposals were so problematic, while your DYK headline for Gerry Mullan wasn't, and it has nothing to do with a bias in favour of Irish nationalism or against Irish unionism. And the fact you don't understand why the some or all of the examples highlighted above were highly questionable, but your Gerry Mulan DYK wasn't is part of why your editing is a problem. Again I know very little about the subject area, so I could be missing something about what makes the Gerry Mullan DYK so bad, but I strongly suspect the reason it didn't get pushback is because I'm not.

  Indeed reading the article and the DYK, while Gerry Mullan may be an Irish nationalist politician, I wouldn't say the DYK or article is something that is putting a positive spin on Irish nationalism. (To be clear, I'm not saying you did it to push a Irish unionist POV, simply that it's a very weird example.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's fair to the C of E to have this and the WP:AE discussion on at the same time. I will also say that I don't want the C of E banned from DYK either, I just want him to avoid certain contentious issues, which was the point of the AE filing in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  AE doesn't have the jurisdiction to deal with most of this, and cannot make him stop nominating contentious hooks. At no point has The C of E has expressed any willingness to adjust his approach either, so I find this necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  IF you take the trouble to read my comments on AE, you will notice I agreed to a proposal from BlackKite333. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For what it's worth, I agree. I'd prefer the AE to play out and, if there's a restriction then placed on The C of E, then it's an opportunity (and maybe a kick up the backside—he knows what I mean!) to clean up their act elsewhere at DYK. But a ban from DYK as a whole seems to over-egg the issue. ——Serial 21:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - @Vanamonde93: For the record, I have no personal memory of negative issues with The C of E. I didn't realize the full extent of how others feel. But when I suggested the disagreements be taken here to ANI, I guess I thought it would be more of something like a temporary restriction on nominations. The magnitude of what you are proposing - banning the editor entirely from DYK - this is something that needs WP:ARB. If you are going to ban somebody from a project, you need ARB to weigh in. I'm sorry you went to the trouble of spelling this out here. My apologies for directing you here. But ARB is where they ban users from projects, and other stiff actions. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I feel sometimes it is my duty to be the whipping boy of DYK, heavy is the burden of being me it seems with the way people have gone after me by citing 14 out of 480+ of my DYKs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Maile66, Serial Number 54129, and Black Kite: I guess I may have given the impression that all the proposals above were necessary; I don't believe that, and was only sketching out different options that have been mentioned. Since that's evidently a little convoluted, I will strike the other options for the moment. Maile66, for what it's worth, AN certainly has the jurisdiction to ban a user from DYK. I don't think it's necessary, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maile, I don't know where you got the idea that this board or the community at large acting here could not ban editors from project areas. We've had people blocked from GAN here, and DYK would work the same way: if there's a community consensus here that someone should not be allowed to participate in an area like GAN or DYK or FAC or a particular project, then that person has to stop participating there. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: Wherever and whatever you do about this, I would appreciate it if you could ask for diffs, not complaints something like this, which could be read as a quasi-personal attack on both The C of E and the reviewing of DYK editors. That one reads like someone who had been around DYK a bit, but does not really identify themselves or provide any diffs - in other words, no proof. It would seem you are suggesting serious problems, so please require diffs when the accusations are made. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Maile66: I am baffled as to what you mean by that; why are you holding me responsible for a drive-by comment made by an IP? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: I am NOT holding you responsible for that. I am just using it as an example, urging you to request diffs when people state their case. That's all. In that particular case, the IP made accusations with nothing to back it up. And since that was an IP, nobody else can connect whatever prior incident they are referring to. For instance ... if I brought up something that I dealt with, even without a diff, people could go through my editing history and figure it out. But if there is no user name, and no diff, it's not helpful. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Maile66: I think I've made the case clearly enough above. I'm not going to ask for diffs because I don't need any more, and any drive-by comments in this discussion will not be given any weight by the closing admin. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I find Vanamonde's proposal to be measured and tailored to stop the disruption. I am torn over if this should be in addition to the actions at AE or if we should watch and wait --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that the discussion on AE is already ongoing and that some form of restriction on Ireland-related topics appears likely to pass, it may be a good idea to wait until that concludes to see if any additional measures are necessary. The Ireland topics appear to be the most persistent area of concern thus far, so the what happens next could depend on the outcome of that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have closed the AE having found a consensus of administrators in favor of a TBAN and with knowledge that Johnuniq had also reached such a conclusion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Accordingly then, shouldn't this be closed too? Otherwise I seem to be subject to double jeopardy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The AE closure addressed the topic of Northern Ireland which represents just 2 of the original complaint's 7 bullet points. Calling "double jeopardy" is a red herring. Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• CofE's antics at DYK are the tip of the iceberg. Let's take this 2017 hook as an example. That a description of Oscar Wilde, probably the most famous British gay man to be persecuted for his sexuality, as a "queer" and "fag", made it on the front page is a dire enough indictment of DYK's lack of editorial oversight, and a typical example of CofE deliberately crafting the most provocative, 'politically incorrect' hook he can. But what is more concerning is what I and other editors found when we looked more closely at the article itself. The hook was cited in the first instance to two unreliable sources, an online tabloid and a blog. CofE bolstered this with citations to better sources, including some supposedly supporting the extraordinary claim that "fag" and "queer" are not in fact slurs and that the long-dead Wilde would have been "amused" by them. On closer inspection, all of these references evaporated. Several were citations to hard-to-access scholarly volumes or pages that were conveniently missing from Google Books previews. When asked, CofE wasn't able to provide quotations from these sources he apparently consulted. Comparing CofE's version as of the DYK to the rewritten version based on actual sources makes it abundantly clear that CofE cherry-picked dubious sources to place undue weight on the statue's offensive local nicknames, ignoring many reliable sources that discuss it as a work of art.

This kind of pernicious POV-pushing is deeply damaging, because it's so hard to detect: we rarely scrutinise articles closely enough to find it, especially when they come from a prolific and superficially "trusted" user like CofE. We could put it down to good-faith carelessness, except that CofE's entire Wikipedia persona is an in-your-face proclamation of right-wing, 'politically incorrect' British nationalism. It's simply not credible that his repeated abuse of DYK to put offensive material on the front page on dates carefully chosen for their inflammatory potential is just "tone deafness" or a benign attempt to startle and amuse; that almost every article he creates has some connection to English nationalism, Unionism, or contemporary right-wing talking points is a coincidence and nothing to do with the spattering of English nationalist, Unionist and right-wing userboxes on his user page; that his slapdash approach to sourcing just happens to skew our articles towards lurid tabloid conservatism. He's doing this on purpose, and that the project has enabled it for so long makes us look like fools.

The proposals so far don't go nearly far enough. A complete ban from DYK and removal of autoreviewer should be considered at a minimum, but I would indef as WP:NOTHERE and be done with it. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Joe Roe: You have the ability to implement a NOTHERE block yourself; and a TBAN isn't going to be implemented unless it's proposed. Why not do so? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Vanamonde93: I'm not comfortable imposing a block individually while a consensus is forming here, but I have just proposed a topic ban from DYK below. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  (The DYK topic ban section is now above, not below, as I've rearranged the sections. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC))

• I'm very disturbed by what User:Joe Roe has uncovered regarding the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture article, and that original version with homophobic slurs in the lead without proper sourcing is quite shocking. (Oh, and the fact that it made it to the front page highlights the incompetence of the DYK review process - I think there's a good case for consigning DYK itself to the trash.) I can see a case for a WP:NOTHERE block myself, but I think it would be controversial and would need a consensus (with more examples of POV-pushing). Anyway, I've revoked Autopatrolled as a minimum step. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "in the lead without proper sourcing" But leads in Wikipedia contain little to no sources, as they are supposed to offer a summary of the article's body. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The problem appears to be the overweening involvement at DYK From the above statements it appears DYK is like a honeytrap for CoE, with an unusual pattern of needing to be on the main-page constantly. As in many things on Wiki and off, if there is moderation things go fine, but if DYK is encouraging and indulging obsessiveness, such problems are bound to arise -- and for those who can't self-control, others are bound to step in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have revoked User:The C of E's Autopatrolled right. Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions, while writing articles covering those very same topics and using DYK to promote them, needs to have their articles reviewed. Also, I have moved this General comments section down from in between two of the proposals, for ease of navigation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, Thanks for doing that; it was a thought that hadn't occurred to me. Greater scrutiny of his articles is entirely a good thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think it should be made perfectly clear that what is happening to The C of E is not specifically because of his personal political and religious beliefs. Indeed, conservative editors have long edited Wikipedia and many have done so without issues. Rather, what has gotten him into trouble is how he has given the impression to editors (whether justifiably or not) that he has used DYK to push these beliefs with the intent to offend or provoke groups that he does not agree with, or to garner more pageviews at the expense of certain groups or people. For the record, I believe that if a Democrat or Republican-supporting editor did something similar, they likely would have received a comparable on-Wiki response. For example, if an editor tried to push pointedly pro-or-anti-Biden or pro-or-anti-Trump hooks on DYK, these would (and should) also receive scrutiny. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Good point, but Joe Roe's comment and Boing! said Zebedee's revocation of the autopatrolled right specifically cited these political views. Wikipedia has hundreds of political user templates and it would be quite absurd to consider anyone displaying one of them suspicious in the topic area. While ideological POV-pushing is a problem, and the oldest problem at that, Wikipedia is a volunteer project and as such, editors only edit topics they are interested in. It's not surprising nor inherently problematic that an unionist would edit unionist topics or an anarchist would edit anarchist topics. In my opinion, the core problem here is that DYK doesn't have enough volunteers to provide oversight before articles appear on the frontpage. And that is quite a serious problem itself. --Pudeo (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that it's not surprising nor inherently problematic that an unionist would edit unionist topics or an anarchist would edit anarchist topics, etc. But editors who write on controversial topics in which they express strong personal opinions (and, perhaps, even editors who write on controversial topics without expressing personal opinions) should have their articles open to review by others. That's especially true in cases where an editor has written openly biased provocative and poorly sourced content - I think that makes peer review of new articles essential. Oh, and yes, I agree we have a serious problem with front page oversight - some of these DYK approvals were woefully incompetent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  As you have explicitly stated above that you have banned CoE from DYK because of their political views, just who is allowed to edit in that region - the use of your admin powers to prohibit people editing because they are a self-admitted Unionist is a gross misuse of admin powers.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, The C of E has not yet been banned from DYK, whether fully or partially. Yes a topic ban has been proposed, but unless consensus approves the proposal (which appears likely in the case of the partial topic ban), he is still permitted to participate in the DYK process provided they do not involve Ireland-related topics (as he has now been topic banned by ArbCom from it). The only actions taken against him so far are a topic ban from Ireland-related topics (which was an enforcement of an ArbCom case) and the removal of his autopatrolled flag. Secondly, the proposals about him did not happen specifically because of his political and religious beliefs. These happened because, in the eyes of some editors, he was using DYK to push said beliefs in Wikipedia's voice with an apparent intent to offend those who espouse beliefs he does not agree with. For the record, if The C of E was instead a Labour-supporting Remainer who was promoting anti-Tory hooks, he would likely have received criticism as well. For the record, like what I already mentioned in the General Discussion section below, it isn't his beliefs that got him into trouble: it's his actions. For transparency, I will mention that in the past I thought that some of the articles he proposed for DYK which ended up not running should have been allowed, provided that a neutral and appropriate hook was proposed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions..." a direct quote - this is a direct statement that someone's ability to contribute has been restricted because of their political and religious views. Of course if the community thinks it is acceptable to discriminate against other editors because of their religious beliefs then it should say so - otherwise people in positions of responsibility shouldn't make statements that could be construed as saying that it is acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: CofE's ability to contribute hasn't changed. Boing pulled Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, a user right which confers "no additional technical abilities" and which less than 0.05% of active registered editors have. That is perfectly within their rights to do since granting or revoking the right is left solely to administrators' discretion. – Joe (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, The question isn't whether someone has strong views in an area, but whether, having expressed strong views, they can set those aside and edit in a manner compliant with policy and common sense, as judged by uninvolved editors. This is what The C of E has consistently failed to do, and is why he has been sanctioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"whether, having expressed strong views, they can set those aside and edit in a manner compliant with policy and common sense" While Wikipedians are supposed to set their personal views aside when editing, political, religious, and ethnic topics often attract partisan editors. Heated arguments in talk pages are not unusual, even when there is no edit war. I am not familiar enough with User:The C of E to be certain whether his private views tend to color the articles which he/she edits. This would require more editors to check his/her contributions beside DYK nominations. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice bit of selective quoting there, Nigel Ish. How about my full sentence: "Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions, while writing articles covering those very same topics and using DYK to promote them, needs to have their articles reviewed"? I've highlighted the important conditional, as you seem to have completely missed it for some reason. Oh, and your claim that CoE's "ability to contribute has been restricted" by having the Autopatrolled right removed is utterly false. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I only just remembered your other accusation against me, Nigel Ish, that I "have explicitly stated above that [I] have banned CoE from DYK". I have done nothing of the sort, and don't have the power to do so even if I wanted to. I strongly suggest you actually read what people say before attacking it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reading back over what's been written here, I'm struck again by CoE's comment: "Please don't take away DYK from me, it is the one thing I live for in article creation and improvement on Wikipedia which makes what can be a dreary task fun and worthwhile". I think that sums up the problem. If article creation starts with looking for something that will make a provocative hook, and then writing the article to fit that hook, then it creates a slant in the article designed for provoking front page sensationalism (which appears to be what happened with Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture). That is exactly the wrong way round. Articles should be written to provide educational material, presented in a factual and NPOV (and maybe boring) style - not to provide maximum fun for their writers. And if there's then something in an article that would make an interesting DYK hook, fine. But what we have instead is similar to tabloid journalism, where the aim of the writing is to generate and support the headline. Is that a fundamental problem with DYK in general? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: The problem I see with DYK at this point is that some hooks that are divisive/POV, misleading or inflammatory can end up on the main page because the criteria for which a hook can be approved and promoted are very picayune, and attempts to object on the aforementioned issues are subsequently shot down as "this is not a policy-based reason, just move on". I feel a more holistic approach needs to be taken to reviewing DYK hooks instead of making it just two or three checkboxes to tick off.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, I've always assumed that DYK was a deliberate attempt at gamification, to encourage people to write articles. If that's the case, then it shouldn't be surprising that sometimes you start with the hook and work backwards. That's not to say POV-pushing is acceptable, just that if you're going to run a game, it shouldn't be surprising if people play it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK can't release Wikipedia editors from their editorial obligations. In Wikipedia, gaming any of our processes is forbidden as disruptive. Also, that something can be gamed, does not mean gaming is its purpose or that you should game it. So, although 'highlight recent work' could be gamed, in Wikipedia it does not mean the purpose of it is a game. Many editors write new articles or improve articles, some decide whether to put them in DYK, but all editors are still expected to not game the system, and are still expected to exercise good editorial judgement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are interesting thoughts, folks, and I think between you you've probably got it just about right. I particularly like Alanscottwalker's point about still being expected to exercise good editorial judgement. I think that's especially true for the front page, but it looks like it's been cast aside too often in the pursuit of a juicy DYK. I think I'd go as far as to suggest DYK is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute on that issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• As a practising, rather hardline Muslim, I have to say, I'm not quite sure I see what's wrong from Wikipedia's perspective with the DYK on Muhammad (ﷺ). Yes, I personally consider the language blasphemous (there, I said the dirty word)—but considering that Wikipedia has in the past not respected those sentiments per WP:NOTCENSORED, I fail to understand how this particular hook is suddenly an egregious transgression. It's worth noting that the comments were clearly attributed to the author of the hymn, so it's not true that they were made "in Wikipedia's voice", as Boing! said Zebedee described them earlier. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I did not describe the Muhammad one as being in Wikipedia's voice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  My bad, I misremembered. Please accept my sincere apologies. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment IMHO, this whole thing would be solved if DYK had a rule that said that once something has gone to prep, only select people can make changes, or the changes have to be posted to DYK:Talk. Everything else can be dealt with at DYK. --evrik ^(talk) 03:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to close

Given the recent AE decision, this seems redundant and/or WP:GRAVEDANCING. I suggest this be closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. When I suggested closing this, I thought that would be non-controversial. I can see that it was anything but. Carry on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. These proposals don't overlap with the AE decision – they are separate sanctions that concerning DYK specifically. I agree, this should be closed … in favour of the restrictions that have consensus to be implemented. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No - of the 14 matters listed at the top, only #s 1-4 would be covered by the AE decision. Leaving #s 5-14, not that I think all these are serious. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Agree wth Roy Smith. The timing was unhelpful, to say the least: AE has done its job, we should wait and see how it plays out. Specifically, how The Cof E responds and whether he adjusts his behavior: ten years block- and sanction-free, the TB may have been a shot across the bows. I'm no lover of their other political and social views, either, but—per WP:ROPE—both they and we deserve to see what they do with the rope remaining to them. ——Serial 13:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Then cast your !votes to oppose the sanctions proposed above, rather than trying to shut us down. This will be decided by consensus, whether you like it or not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If all you can do is cast aspersions, Boing, then you should probably go elsewhere: you're not not helping with that "trying to shut us down" bollocks. ——Serial 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me?? Casting aspersions? How? By suggesting you want to close the AN thread with no action? Which you are?--WaltCip-(talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You're excused. "Trying to shut us down" is childish and accusatory. ——Serial 14:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So what else does "Request to close" mean? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no aspersions here, just facts. You *are* trying to close down these discussions, by explicitly supporting the "Request to close" proposal. How else can your agreement with the person proposing the close be read? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is neither redundant nor gravedancing. The AE case said nothing about the DYK process specifically. This discussion is to examine DYK, covering more than those specific Northern Ireland topics. And the number of opinions building to what looks like fairly strong consensus makes it clear that a proposal to dismiss it is not approriate. We have active proposals with active participation, with a lot of support. You can't bypass the consensus process and shut us up just because you don't like it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The proposal to "partial topic ban from DYK" seems to have fairly broad support at the moment, and it wider than the AE decision, as it includes any potentially problematic hooks, including "religion" and suchlike. The evidence in this thread mentions a pejorative hook about Muhammed, which wouldn't likely be covered by the AE ban on "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", even broadly construed? I think that proposal should be formally closed with a decision, not abandoned as moot. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) A ridiculous request. The discussion by the arbitrators in the AE case specifically kicked the issue regarding DYK back to the community: ... if there has not been any disruption following them reaching awareness then I don't think AE can levy sanctions. The community, of course, could. Closing this as redundant would be a definitive supervote.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Since you've quoted me, let me note two things. 1. I am not an arbitrator just an uninvolved administrator. 2. Just to be clear, later discussion did clarify that there was disruption post-awareness which is why I closed in favor of the sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  My bad. Struck that portion of my post. Apologies for the misattribution, Barkeep49.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW you did have the part right where I explicitly noted that the community can choose to go above and beyond the remit of AE. That is accurate (and something I continue to believe). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is consensus for the partial topic ban in addition to the AE sanction. Impose it and shut this megathread down. I know there are problems with The C of E's behavior, but this is quickly approaching 'pound of flesh' territory and it needs to be stopped. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's not redundant at all; I commented on the AE request, and opened this quite intentionally. As Boing and others have already noted, only a handful of the problematic behaviors would be addressed by the topic ban imposed at AE. Serial Number 54129, I appreciate the good faith you're willing to extend to The C of E, but the fact is he's had any number of shots across his bow, in the form of uninvolved admins at WT:DYK telling him he was way out of line. It's not made the slightest difference. Even when it was obvious that a TBAN would be enacted at AE, the only thing The C of E has been willing to commit to of his own accord is avoiding hooks involving Londonderry (which is now moot, since the TBAN) and even there there's not the slightest acknowledgement that he's done anything wrong. He's had years to mend his ways. A TBAN that doesn't address the entire locus of the problem isn't going to fix anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Veillg1 continues to create machine translated articles without attribution

I came across Veillg1 (talk · contribs · logs) creating many pages that are machine translations of the same page from French Wikipedia. Over the years and most recently in Feb 2020, the user was advised that he should attribute machine translations using on talk pages using {{translated page}}. A quick review of his recently created pages has shown this has not happened. Furthermore, I find the machine translated pages very hard to understand. ---William Graham ^talk 04:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

William Graham, Could you give some specific examples? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Here are some examples:

• Bec-Scie_River and fr:Rivière_Bec-Scie from August 12, 2020
• Maheu River and fr:Rivière Maheu from June 10, 2020
• Rivière de Chicago and fr:Rivière de Chicago from April 14, 2020

I note that none of them are tagged as machine translations. Also, I count approximately 500 such machine translation creations in article space in the last 6 months. William Graham ^talk

William Graham, Partial blocked from Article and Draft space; I'll be opening a contributor copyright investigation on them shortly. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

William Graham Concerning the translation messages, I do agree to place the translation message in each related article. It is not necessary to invest time for discussion about this issue. I just wonder how you can assume it is a machine (software) or my own work. If there is any future translation, I engage myself add the translation message.Gaétan Veillette 01:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veillg1 (talk • contribs)

Veillg1, yes, we must discuss this. Please answer this direct question. Are you using translation software, or are you translating manually based on your knowledge of both French and English? What is your technique? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Regarding your question, in the past, I designed the paragraphs in either English or French (mostly). The result of translations usually comes from a mixture of my personal translation work and using translation tools. Sometimes I use virtual dictionaries: Wiktionary, Reverso, sometimes directly through a general online search. I also use translation software for article segments if needed, mainly Reverso and Google translator. In the past, I also used Collins and Larousse.

Note that the French> English (or English> French) translations require adaptations, in particular the infoboxes, the way of presenting the references, the words in quotation marks, etc. Generally, long sentences are more difficult to translate. In short, human contribution is always required in order to validate the result. The way to achieve this is unique to everyone. The most important thing for WP is primarily the result of the exercise and not the process.

Note that I still consider this blockage to be unfair, exaggerated and counter-performing for WP. After thousands of writing articles in English, the bottom line is that there are few adjustments to the content of my writing in English articles; one can reasonably conclude in general that the result is well accepted.--Veillg1talk 04:17, Sept. 1st, 2020 (UTC)

I just wonder how you can assume it is a machine (software) or my own work. Probably it's because of things like this, where running the text of fr:Rivière Maheu through Google Translate outputs the text of Maheu River, making it clear the text was machine translated. --Calton | Talk 20:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• CCI now filled out at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Veillg1. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible WP:SNOW closure?

Are any of these AFD's worth closing via WP:SNOW?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield Mall - clearly overwhelming consensus to keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri City Mall - article was substantially expanded during AFD and is currently at DYK
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Arcos Mall - same as above

The first one has been open two weeks, and the other two are at DYK, which is my main reasoning behind this. All three have pretty obvious consensus to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Especially the last two, I don't see this being a SNOW situation. The first one, maybe, but what's the rush? DKY won't grind to a halt if these stay open another few days and get closed normally. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The rush would seem to be that TPH is trying to make a point about a different thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TimothyBlue_mall_AFDs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: I would have motioned to speedy keep regardless of the ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to hold all mall AfDs closes until discussions at AFD RFC and ANI are finished

There are currently two discussions regarding notability guidelines and shopping malls. One at AfD talk and one at ANI. The intent is to clarify what type of coverage is acceptable to establish notability. The outcomes of these discussions will impact the close decision because the issue with all these mall AfDs hang on this issue.

I propose holding all closures of mall AfDs until these discussions have concluded so the closers can look at the completed discussions for guidance on the close.

It will not hurt anything to keep the discussions open. However, if guidelines are clarified and they turn out to contradict the close rationale, there will be a question of what to do with the closed AfDs. There is no harm in holding the discussions open until the ANI and AFD RFC are closed. There is WP:NOHURRY.

Thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  02:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The AfDs can continue as-is. If they're deleted and these discussions show that to be incorrect, WP:DRV is the solution. If they're not deleted, and that's shown to be incorrect, they can be re-submitted to AfD at a later time. Nothing about this requires us to leave these AfDs in limbo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: @Rhododendrites: TimothyBlue is still calling for a "hold" on mall AFDs to draw more attention to the RFC; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methuen Mall and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center. These both look like they should be closed as "keep" since they're both a week past the relist and have a blatantly clear consensus. TimothyBlue is probably going to argue WP:NOHURRY, but the consensus is blatantly obvious on both of these AFDs and his call to keep them open longer makes zero sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: et al: ETA: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amigoland Mall (2nd nomination) too, same unnecessary argument, AFD open long enough past relist to warrant closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I trust whomever closes those discussions will be able to sort it out. People make all sorts of claims/requests in AfDs that may or may not have a basis in WP:PAG. I can't imagine a closer would be swayed by that, given how clearly the e.g. Methuen Mall AfD is being resolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, which means that you can only revert once every two days; furthermore, whenever you make a revert, you must discuss the issue on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Arglebargle79

The reason why the sanction was put on in the first place was that I reverted a blatant case of vandalism. I'm serious. Sometime in the late spring or early summer, someone decides to replace all the pictures of Joe Biden with a particularly ugly version which makes him look like a walking corpse with giant buck teeth.

So I replaced it with the longstanding original one, which was the official vice-presidential one that pretty much everyone uses outside Wikipedia. But then an administrator going by the moniker of @Tartan357 noticed what I was doing, replaced ALL the pictures of Biden throughout the 2020 election series with the objectionable one, and it kind of made me wretch. So I reverted the possible vandalism with an explanation of my personal reasons for doing what I did. Then Tartan57 decided that since he was an administrator he would go and get me banned for a good faith attempt to improve the article. I believe there's a record of it somewhere.

Since he's an administrator, others believed him over me, and I was forced to agree to leave the pictures alone without getting a consensus first. When He tried to get the disgusting picture on the infobox of the Democratic convention article I got consensus for a better picture for the convention page. Everything was hunky-dory, or so I thought.

Tartan57, who hadn't been there in a very long time, decided to replace the Biden picture that was already there in two charts, to the objectionable one. He knew that doing that would trigger me, and I guess that's why he did it. This is WP:vandalism as described in the rules and regs. I called him out on the talk page and reverted the pictures. He went whining to you guys... and here we are.

I know that I'm a bit of a pain. Anyone passionate about anything is a bit of a pain. I've gotten into fights and have been complained about. The Rocky de la Fuente thing in the Republican primaries, for example. He was on the ballot in more states than the two other Trump challengers and another person (also an administrator) wanted to censor out his results. It was very contentious.

But I'm passionate about Wikipedia and want it as good as it can be.

The sanctions are unwarranted and actually detrimental to Wikipedia's 2020 election series. How? Certain future events are scheduled and that schedule is written in stone. One of these is the upcoming Inauguration. Now in previous cycles, there was no real need for a major article at this stage. The committee had been formed and construction had begun. Not too interesting but notable enough that someone could find it. This time is different. The President has preemptively declared the election fraudulent, and this is notable as hell. Readers are interested in the controversy and what could happen. So what to do about it?

What I did, was to expand the inauguration article. All sorts of mischief could happen and it's our duty as Wikipedians to have an article that explains what might happen. This is what Wikipedia is for, after all.

People started improving the article. That's good. If people do that, I say, God love 'em! But then some jerk decided to remove pretty much everything we had done. I'd like to revert it back and keep on improving so that readers can have an overview of the controversy between now and November 4.

But I can't do that with the sanctions. So please remove them.

Also, when it comes to other subjects that I'm interested in, I rarely ever do any reversions. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Salvio

Background: Arglebargle had already been reported to WP:ANEW for edit warring over Biden's photograph and had agreed not to change the photograph (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive410#User:Arglebargle79 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: User will refrain)). After that, he then changed the photograph once again on 25 June. On 18 August, he started edit warring again (1, 2, 3, and 4) and was reported to WP:ANEW.

At that point, I examined his edits and saw that, at the time, he had been engaged in more edit wars, including over trivial things. An example: 1, 2, 3 (or here 1, 2). Another edit war: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The feeling I got was, basically, that Arglebargle was an editor who has a tendency to engage in edit wars and who tends to revert first and ask questions later, as evidenced, for instance, here, where he makes an edit, is reverted, reverts the other editor and, then, self-reverts.

I also noticed that he seems to have a tendency to "discuss" with other editors using edit summaries (1, 2 3, and 4). Of course, this, taken alone, is not enough to support any finding of disruption, but it's discouraged and contributes to the perception that this user has a tendency to engage in edit wars instead of resorting to WP:DR (which is the reason for the need to discuss reverts on the talk page).

In short, in the light of Arglebargle's editing style, I thought that the imposition of a 1RR was the best way to stop disruption, while, at the same time, allowing him to continue editing. Salvio 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Small update: I have just modified the wording of the sanction, to clarify that the sanction only applies to edits relating to post-1932 American politics. Salvio 09:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tartan357

This appeal is laden with false statements. I am not an administrator. Furthermore, I have not been the only editor to oppose Arglebargle79's edit-warring. There has been a pretty strong reaction against it from the community. Arglebargle79 has shown no interest in working out any disputes through discussion, instead regularly resorting to warring, personal attacks and lies to preserve their edits. This appeal shows they have no intention of changing that behavior, and is representative of their angry and hyperbolic writing. That said, I do think some of their contributions have been constructive. The problem arises when there's a dispute, which is why I think a revert-based sanction is appropriate. I haven't seen evidence of disruption in areas outside of American politics. Salvio giuliano didn't specify that the sanction only applies to post-1932 politics of the United States per WP:AC/DS, and I think that clarification should be made in the log of sanctions. In their statement above, Arglebargle79 has essentially admitted seeking a removal of the sanctions so they can continue their edit-warring, and has not acknowledged any of the problems with their editing. I believe lifting the sanctions entirely would cause undue disruption. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arglebargle79

• I strongly suggest Arglebargle79 re-read WP:Vandalism. Whatever the merits of the Biden photo, it's clear that there was no vandalism involved. Making that suggestion seriously damages their credibility and makes it hard to trust anything else in their statement. It also means they've made a personal attack in their appeal, which is never a good start. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• First off, Tartan357 is not an admin. Second, they seem to want the sanctions removed to edit-war to restore terrible edits on 2021 United States presidential inauguration, such as "Should a large enough victory to convince most Republicans, take place" (unsourced) regarding a Biden inauguration, and a heading "How it isn't supposed to go: Conspiracy theories and Worst-case scenarios". Their additions are original research, and possibly BLP violations by insinuating that various people won't accept the election results. I would maintain the sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Taking a look at the actual photo of Biden that Arglebargle79 called a "particularly ugly version which makes him look like a walking corpse with giant buck teeth" is enlightening. Arglebargle79 is incorrect and is displaying really poor judgment. Calling use of this photo blatant vandalism is false. This situation is both very wrong and very strange. I recommend keeping the editing restriction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• I have not examined this and so I offer no judgment, but just noting there's a related discussion at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and disruptive editing by Arglebargle79. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Arglebargle79

• As a procedural matter, I think Arglebargle has confused the appeal procedure on AN with the one on AE. This is quite understandable and not Arglebargle's fault, because the DS procedures have become so complicated. Someone might want to adjust the formatting in this section, although I wouldn't suggest we get overly hung up about it. On the substance of the appeal, I look forward to Salvio's statement. If the only edit-warring issue concerns a single disputed photograph, then an indefinite sitewide 1RR/48h restriction would strike me as an unusually severe sanction, but of course there may be more to the story. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict with Hut 8.5 below) I thank Salvio giuliano for his detailed explanation above and for thought he put into selecting the sanction. Nil Einne also makes a valid point that I hope Arglebargle79 will take seriously. However, the discretionary sanction as imposed is problematic because it extends to all of Wikipedia, even though it was imposed under the American Politics discretionary sanctions and thus is only supposed to extend to that topic-area. In addition, while Arglebargle79 had received prior DS notifications, it doesn't seem he had an opportunity to comment on several of the edits Salvio has identified as problematic before the sanction was imposed, or even in his original appeal. As I said earlier, the discretionary sanctions procedures have become too complicated, and I might be comfortable overlooking these procedural issues if it I thought the sanction was clearly fair. But my opinion is that it is significantly harsher than necessary at this time, so I would replace the indefinite 1RR restriction with a clear and emphatic warning. (Important note to Arglebargle79: This is just one person's opinion, and I'm often outvoted. You are still required to abide by the sanction unless there is a consensus to overturn it and you are formally notified to that effect.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Arglebargle79 could also profitably reread our content policies, and is at risk of being blocked or restricted if he doesn't follow them, but an anti-edit-warring sanction addresses a different issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• This does certainly look like disruptive editing to me. Arglebargle79 was reported to AN/EW for edit warring, avoided a block by promising not to do it again and then proceeded to do it again several times. Describing this as "a blatant case of vandalism" is silly hyperbole. Salvio's diffs suggest this is part of a pattern. There may be some scope for changing the sanction but I think Salvio was justified in imposing something. Incidentally the sanction would only apply to articles about post-1932 US politics because of the scope of the ArbCom case it was made under. Hut 8.5 20:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. The user's passion (and zeal?) lead to over enthusiastic reverts. 1RR in 48 hours is not overly arduous and prevents disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that, with the scope of the sanction having been clarified, there is a consensus to decline this appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Veteran's and Peoples Party - Misinformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf

The above editor is preventing accurate information from being edited on the VAPP Wikipage, even when the correct sources are linked as evidence. The party is a centrist political party as stated on their website in the UK with George Reid registered as the leader with the UK Electoral Commission. Even with the references and links being updated the editor Vif12vf continues to revert the update; this person classes the party as Right-Wing with no evidence to support such accusation and they are also a former member of Sinn Fein which is a conflict of interest and I believe is a vendetta against a party made up of former armed forces personnel.

<http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6719> this link is the latest registration of VAPP with UK EC.

<https://www.ukvpp.org/> this link is the official VAPP website and not the one currently seen on the wikipage <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_and_People%27s_Party>

Every attempt to talk and provide the correct evidence is met with ignorance and an immediate reversion to false information.

I wish this editor to be warned about proliferation of misinformation and have some integrity as an editor; if this can't be resolved then I move for the page to be deleted to prevent people from being misinformed and an unwarranted prejudice from being exhibited.Dingapottamuss (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• What relation have you got to the IP 2A02:C7F:B2BB:DF00:9CA1:2668:6B63:CF57? They also seem to have an issue with Sinn Fein, their edit-sunmmaries are very similar, and they're making the same edits as you. That's a very big coincidence. Meanwhile, neither you, nor the IP, nor Vif12vf have presented a single reliable third-party source saying what the party's political position is. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who that IP address belongs to and if they are making similar comments then maybe that's someone else spotting what I have. You say that none of us have provided sufficient 3rd party evidence so how is it that Right-Wing is allowed to remain? Surely it should read "a minor political party"? What I wish to add is that the current political climate in the UK has been disappointing with the same parties being the only options available. I searched for other parties and VAPP came up but everything I read about them was being contradicted by the Wikipage. I wanted to ensure that the correct information is available to others who may be looking for other UK parties as alternative to Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. This is why I created a Wiki account as I wanted to be able to make changes but not hide behind them; but also, I hoped to be given advice and assistance to make me a better user. But everytime I make an update and provide the 3rd party reference as proof it gets undone by the same user Vif12vf. I know there are better people here as the original creator was receptive to a discussion we had reference islamaphobia; an agreement was reached and it was removed from the page. However, if I too saw any evidence to prove otherwise I would edit it back in myself. I just want the truth to be available to people as Main Stream Media has degraded to delivering misinformation to the public. Dingapottamuss (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Your last sentence immediately shows that you may not be capable of editing neutrally here. Mainstream media sources (apart from those mentioned at WP:RSP such as the Daily Mail) are the ones that Wikipedia uses. Regardless, since there appear to be no WP:RS sources saying that VPP is either Centrist or Right-wing, the article should say neither. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have edited it so that it states a more neutral statement "a minor political party". I have the ability to edit objectively as I will only ever state something that can be backed up. In my profession I'm ISO 9001 auditor and so I know full well about establishing objective evidence before making statements otherwise it questions our professional integrity. Thank you for your input and guidance though it is much appreciated as I'm new to the whole Wikipedia editing world; I'm a stickler for alacrity, truth and factsDingapottamuss (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional response to the WP:RSP for the Daily Mail; clicking the link and reading the section on the Daily Mail indicates it as an unreliable source as are many of the MSM in that list so my last sentence means I'm more than suited to be an objective and neutral editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingapottamuss (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• That's OK, I was being careful there as one sign of an editor who may have an agenda is that they "distrust the mainstream media". Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Multi-day abuse, edit warring, homophobia

Hi - can someone please extended confirmed-protect the article Edward I of England? There is multi-day edit warring, including abusive statements against editors, and multiple homophobic statements - I would like to request an IP block as well for homophobic statements against two editors here. ɱ (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see the IP has been blocked, please watch for more IP edits, this may require article protection. ɱ (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The block covers the range used, so we should be good. I revdeleted the two offending edit summaries.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ɱ (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, Malleus Scrotum's worth a chuckle. EEng 19:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Core2012

• Core2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just increased the block of Core2012 to indefinite. The user has a long history of tendentious editing, and the latest response on their Talk page repudiates this, claiming that "There is no reason to capitalize black, and illegal immigrant is the correct legal term" (spoiler: it's not) - their edits include numerous examples of changing "undocumented" to "illegal". News organisations such as Associated Press, NBC and ABC ban the term "illegal immigrant" preferring "undocumented" due to the racist overtones (we do not, after all, talk about speeding motorists as "illegal drivers"). Regardless of the merits, the user's primary focus is on racially charged minor changes and this, to me, is clearly a problem, especially when viewed in the context of edits like removed mention of race. his race is completely irrelevant as this has yet to even be investigated as racial. on Killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Overall, I believe this user is here for purposes other than collaborating to build a great encyclopaedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I support this block on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE and WP:TE. In the month of may they slowly edit warred on Killing of Ahmaud Arbery over the inclusion of "African-American" in the lead because his race is completely irrelevant as this has yet to even be investigated as racial. They have a history of changing "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" and their most recent article edits are to do these changes on multiple articles. Their most recent article space edits use the edit summary Fixed typo for these edits and they also marked them as minor. These are not minor edits and this is not fixing a typographical error (or in other words fixing a spelling mistake). Their last edit makes me support a indef block instead of a block with a expiry, as they say I strongly disagree with your characterization of my edits. There is no reason to capitalize black, and illegal immigrant is the correct legal term. This shows they don't understand why they are blocked and will continue to make these edits after their block expires. A indef block is not necessarily forever, and a unblock request which addresses the reasons for the block / affirms they won't continue with these edits should do well in their favour. I would note that their recent edits are mostly the edits which have been disruptive, but there have been good edits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am supportive of an indefinite block. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Twinkle follows redirects when issuing block notices

Hello,

I think admins should be aware that - in Twinkle's default configuration - it will follow redirects when it issues notices to a user's talk page, including block notices. I reported this last May, and again this March, and there is another active discussion today. This is because at least one LTA is aware of this bug, and is harassing specific admins by creating sockpuppet accounts, and redirecting talk pages to their harassment target. When the sockpuppet receives a template message from a Twinkle user, that message is sent to the harassment target instead. According to the Twinkle devs, should probably peek at the talk page before blocking. So, please make sure that you do so, or encourage the Twinkle devs to fix this bug. Regards, ST47 (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Argh! I just notified ST47 of speedy deletions of attack pages because User talk:ST47 (9-2) was redirecting to ST47. --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have created Special:AbuseFilter/1082. If you have access to private filters, please check and see if you can think of any ways that it might be bypassed. ST47 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix, yep, I did that once this morning - apologies again ST47 - I'll try to bear that in mind and avoid repeating the mistake. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note and efforts - a new post to your fourth link indicates a fix is (now) forthcoming. For anyone targeted in this manner: you can request for abusively registered impersonation/harassing account names to be "hidden" in the context of a global lock. –xeno^talk 13:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of plot summaries

I was conditionally unblocked with the agreement, "No addition of any plot summaries anywhere in Wikipedia". Can this be amended to restricting me from adding plot summaries from existing sources, and not those that I write on my own? Galobtter, I was told September would be a good time to appeal. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792,You promise to never copy from sources, yes? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Kailash29792:, I'm inclined to support this. But I have some concerns about Kailash's ability on handling near-paraphrasing, which is why I want to ask: are you talking about "you reading/watching the original book/film, and constructing a plot purely yourself" or "reading sources/reviews and then writing without drawing any of it from the soures"? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Moneytrees, yes I promise. Now the very thought of copying from the web (very often even books) makes me uneasy. Nosebagbear, I developed the plot of Guru Sishyan after watching it, and re-watched scenes to ensure I made no factual error. That is the approach I seek to follow. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable. I could only do a comparatively sparse sense check due to the sheer number of recent edits, but I couldn't spot anything problematic. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, I'm happy to partially undo the requested part of the restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Is there perhaps someone familiar with the types of works that Kailash seems to want to add plot summaries to act as a short term mentor/checker to make sure the summary seems correct and not close paraphrase? Unfortunately these appear to be foreign films so not something like myself can check. --Masem (t) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I feel that proper (short-term) mentoring here would be particularly onerous - since Kailash would be sourcing purely from the subject matter, rather than review sources, the reviewer would have to actually have watched the films to check it was being done properly - without that it's somewhat trying to prove a negative, which a mentor can't do any better than a standard copyright check. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support t-ban appeal As someone who is familiar with the situation and the primary copyright problem. Kailash is a competent editor who has been careful since their unblock and assisted in removing some commented out violations; I'm pretty sure they can be trusted. I don't think a mentor type deal is necessary (although I'd be able and am willing to fill that role), there's no significant deception going on here so Kailash can be taken by their word. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, so you want to engage in WP:OR? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding plots using the source material isn't considered original research. From WP:FILMPLOT: [s]ince films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, it wouldn't be OR if I'm adding the plot of a film which is available for viewing. Lost films need sources though, as WP:FILMPLOT says, "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and lost films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable." Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, yes it is. For some reason the film fans have chosen to interpret "no original research" as meaning "no original research apart from writing novel interpretations of things we like", but that's not what th epolicy actually is. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, the plot section doesn't contain "original interpretation"; it only describes the story of the film. The "interpretations" of the film go to "Themes" or a similar section and is subject to the the same sourcing requirements. WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, not just some essay. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, it contains an individual user's personal observations, based on their own view of what is significant and their own interpretation of the narrative. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, this view isn't supported by the wider community; guidelines explicitly state that adding plots isn't original research. If you disagree with WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, you can gain consensus to change it at the MOS talk page; Kailash's request at the noticeboard isn't the right place to bring up content disputes. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I won't add personal interpretations or opinions to the plot. Just look at my edits at X-Men: The Last Stand (here) and Us (here). Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Kailash seems to understand not to copy/paste plot summaries. Darkknight2149 00:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Kailash is a well respected contributer and has improved many articles to GA/FA. He understands what mistakes he made and has said he won't repeat them. That's enough to lift the topic ban. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Need an experienced closer for Yet Another Daily Mail Discussion

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

---

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday? got archived without a clear answer. I unarchived it. Could an experienced closer please write up a closing summary and close it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. It didn't reach a really specific conclusion but I do get the utility of having an actual summary in these endless discussions. ~ mazca ^talk 19:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Manual of Style for WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries

Hi there, I'm unable to move the MOS I wrote for WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries due to it being named Wikipedia:Wikiproject Catalan-speaking countries. Could an administrator move it from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheKaloo/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice? Thanks! ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Not completely sure an admin was actually needed (you needed to select "Wikipedia:" as the namespace then just move it to "WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice" within that namespace, otherwise you'd have got a double Wikipedia: at the start, which may have been what was being blocked) but it's been moved either way! ~ mazca ^talk 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: ohhhhh, thats what double namespace means! ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

We're probably going to get a lot of these requests at AN. This is the second one in 2 days. Apparently, if someone tries to move a page that has a namespace prefix ("Wikipedia:" or "Template:") and simply cuts/pastes the without removing the namespace prefix, the software will try to move it to "Template:Template:" or "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:". The error message "You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix. This is likely a title naming error. If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." Is there someone with the access who can update this message so it is less confusing? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the actual error? ffs, just have it say "remove the second namespace and try again". AN shouldn't be the first port of call. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the error message is probably giving too much consideration to the 0.01% of times where the person was actually intending to make a Wikipedia:Wikipedia: page (which probably does need admin assistance) rather than the other 99.99% of the time where someone just did it slightly wrong and needs a friendly correction. ~ mazca ^talk 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about where to discuss a user

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

---

Hi all - I used to be an admin but that was years ago and I haven't bothered trying to get it reinstated. Anyway, I have a concern about a user who I think is a minor and I want to discuss it with admins/bureaucrats confidentially, avoiding altering that user or drawing attention. What's the best channel for this? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, Special:Emailuser/Oversight Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 01:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Huge SPI backlog

With 10 current requests on WP:SPI as "Endorsed" by clerk for checkuser, and 19 requests where the status is "CU requested", I can say that this is the largest backlog on SPI that I have ever seen. Attention of more CUs and Clerks is needed on SPI. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like over the past few hours we've cut it down to 6 endorsed and 6 CU-requested. Mz7 (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I vote we have a sitenotice that says something like "Due to the backlog at SPI, we ask that you not engage in sockpuppetry for the month of September. Thank you for your cooperation." No way that could go wrong! GeneralNotability (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification/Appeal

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

---

With regard to the ban imposed upon me above. I am prepared to follow it. However I do have my concerns about this veto over my hooks because I feel it has the potential to be abused by people who don't like me or disagree with my hooks on a personal basis rather than a policy based reason. Henceforth, I would like to propose it be altered so that if anyone does wish to object to any of my hooks, they must provide a valid policy based reason (with a link to said policy) if they wish to exercise such a thing. Otherwise, I can see people just objecting without giving a reason or using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I mentioned to @Primefac: when he served me with the notice. I hope my proposal can be accepted in the interest of fairness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – the ink hasn't even dried on a proposal that garnered overwhelming consensus, and you're already trying to get that restriction overturned? Your words "I am prepared to follow it" ring hollow. Shows you haven't learned your lesson one bit and have no respect for WP:CONSENSUS. Shameful. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132: No, no, no: you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to get it overturned, I am trying to get clarification of it and assurance that it won't get abused. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, I understand what you are saying all too well. Another example of cognitive dissonance: "I'm not trying to get it overturned", while you title this "Appeal". Fact of the matter is DYK hooks can already be rejected on the basis of a valid policy based reason (e.g. WP:NPOV). The reason why these restrictions were approved in the first place is because you consistently disregarded what reviewers said even after they rejected your hooks citing WP:NPOV, and went on to unilaterally re-introduce your rejected hook in the prep area. By watering down this restriction, you are essentially telling the community that you want to be treated like any other DYK contributor (who doesn't have your track record of disruptive behaviour). In other words, you want to escape punishment that has been justly imposed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm very sorry to say this, but the reason the restriction was implemented in the first place (and with strong consensus to do so) was because the rope had run out. Too many times had much drama occurred in nominations because of your insistence on hooks despite consensus against them, or reluctance to propose or accept compromise alternatives (with the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination being a notable example of this behavior). Plus, the proposed modification could render the restriction toothless. Ideally hook vetos should be done per a policy or guideline, but not accepting such a result is essentially just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you really wish for the restriction to be appealed or modified (which I suggest not do for at least six months per the minimum appeal time), I would highly suggest that it would be under the condition that you promise to no longer propose "controversial" hooks or give an acknowledgement of understanding as to how you got into this situation in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fair to treat this as a clarification request. I can see how these remedies could be abused in the manner CofE describes, and it's not obviously clear that the community intended for that to be the case, or that it's unwilling to consider modifications to those sanctions to prevent such abuse (but still address the underlying concerns). This clarification request may be premature, as nothing untoward has happened yet, but it doesn't appear unreasonable. WP:AGF still exists, folks. My tangential view is that the AN section failed to resolve the underlying issue, which is poor DYK scrutiny. That problematic DYKs end up on the frontpage is more a DYK administrative issue than it is a conduct issue. Anyway, I suppose that ship has sailed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The C of E, if you feel it is being abused, then come back with facts and data when that happens. Asking for clarification based on an abstract possibility puts the focus on you, whereas you want it to be on others who are causing you a problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: AGF goes both ways, and this "appeal" presumes that abuse will happen. The time for such an appeal is not now, but only if there should be bad-faith actors posting on The C of E's DYK nominations. The reason for the remedy to begin with was because of The C of E's intransigence regarding his hooks, and preemptively requiring reviewers to have to jump through extra hoops strikes me as highly inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because this modification would open the door for The C of E to argue why a stated objection doesn't meet whatever cited policy, and the arguing with every editor that objected to their hooks seemed to be a big part of the problem at DYK. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed – I see this appeal as nothing more than a ploy to WP:PLAYPOLICY and game the system. The reason why he demands that an objecting reviewer "must provide a valid policy based reason" is simply to play his favourite trump card (i.e. WP:NOTCENSORED) against our expected WP:GRATUITOUS. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would be a return to status quo.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bloom6132 - If people have objections you will need to work with them to find a solution, If that fails you may need to find something else to do here. I see no reason to alter it at this present time. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw Blimey, I had no idea such a simple request would cause so much heat. Accordingly then I withdraw my request for clarification. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

AfD for Nathan James

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

---

Dear Admins, I nominated this article for deletion last week and it remains ongoing after the 7 days and hasn't been relisted. At the moment, it looks like a non-consensus due to the way there are debates on whether or not the article has potential and/or enough reliable sources. Can this be looked into please? I'm happy to withdraw my nomination as I believe there is scope for this and will continue to look for sources. Personally, having re-rad the article there is enough to meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Block appeal

The user bradv🍁 blocked me from editing this article about Donald Trump’s election. I had been editing that article for almost a month without any complaint, until another editor reverted a bunch of my edits, including some that were there for weeks. I let the deletion occur for some, but for the ones that were there for weeks I reverted and asked to discuss on the talk page. I started discussing and it seemed to be going well, until the other editor continually started reverting my edits. I pointed to the fact that the edits, up until this point (and for the past few weeks) had WP:EDITCONSENSUS and that they should be discussed before deletion and asked the other editor to stop reverting to the prevent an edit war. That’s when this admin gives me a warning about edit warring. At this point, the other editor and I were using the talk page and neither of us were editing the article. That’s when this user blocks me from editing the article entirely. After that, the other editor stopped discussing, because they didn’t have to, and reverted my edits again. Once again, after the warning, I did not revert any edits. The edits are currently reverted. I won’t get into much detail about the content, but the article said that a group of people were anti Trump and this user didn’t think it was opposition. I was more than happy to discuss but now I can’t even edit the article and my edits are still reverted. Meanwhile, the other editor reverted my edit 4 times I believe and is not blocked. I agreed to come to consensus before adding this back, but the other user won’t use the talk page right now since I’m blocked (I guess). I have made a mass amount of contributions to this article most of which are still up there today. I even had a dispute with this user a while ago and tracked them down to apologize for a previous dispute where I was clearly wrong. I have been very friendly with this editor as well as to the other editors on the opposition page. Please look into this. Thank you.Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Background information for this appeal can be found at:

• Talk:List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign#Article is false
• User talk:Lima Bean Farmer#September 2020
• User talk:bradv#Edit war warning

The long and short of it is that Lima Bean Farmer seems to think their BLP violations can stay in the article simply because no one noticed for over a month. I'm happy to hear more opinions on how to handle this editor. – bradv🍁 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Considering you've been blocked 4 times in the 5 months you've been here, twice indefinitely, you should probably consider yourself lucky it wasn't an indef. Praxidicae (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, this wasn’t a BLP violation since the article itself said that they were anti-Trump. I agreed to further discuss it on the talk page whether or not it should be included and to come to a consensus before it is or is not added back. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, if I may, I'd like to offer some unsolicited and not-particularly-informed advice: I think you mean well, and I think you make a compelling appeal in all but one way--time. Keep editing in good faith and let some water flow under the bridge. There are many other articles that could use your efforts. Let this one be, at least for the moment. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, where does this source say that Fred Upton opposes Trump's 2020 campaign? You added this claim a number of times, even after being told on the talk page that you were misrepresenting the source. And this is just one example – there are more listed on the talk page. – bradv🍁 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, it says that he has not thought about endorsing him. Maybe it isn’t opposition but there has not been a clear definition yet on opposition. If I agree not to add that one back without a new and reliable source that’s more clear, will you unblock me? Also Dumuzid, I appreciate your comments. Thank you for that. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, and I have not thought about changing your partial block to indefinite. That does not mean I oppose it. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: You're partially blocked - You're lucky it wasn't an indef given your recent history. There are so many other articles on this project that you could constructively contribute to. You should do this, and then come back and appeal this partial block once you've got a few months of constructive, trouble-free editing under your belt. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

^{they/them | argue | contribs}, what in my recent history would lead to an indefinite block? I was blocked for on a copyright violation which was a misunderstanding. Also, wait months? Republicans are opposing trump now, not after the election. For those unfamiliar with the American election system, elections occur in the beginning of November so there’s only about two months left. I have added so many good additions to this page and even earned a barn star over the good edits I’ve made. Long story short, I’ve improved that page more than anyone else has (probably combined) so being blocked from it is completely ridiculous. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, I would respectfully suggest that you're saying here "I alone can fix it." I find that significant, though I will say that I don't believe such statements on Wikipedia or in life more generally. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk)

Dumuzid, I can see how that’s what might be perceived from above, so let me clarify. I know that I alone can not fix this article and frankly it doesn’t need much fixing at the moment. However, a few things need to occur. First, there needs to be a better definition of oppose, which the editors on that article are not willing to debate currently. Second, I was really researching some of these people (especially those who opposed him in 2016) and was able to find out if they oppose him. I spent so much time researching, and now it appears that only the Republicans who are very open about their opposition are being added (those currently in the New York Times, CNN, etc.). I have taken the extra step to do research into people. I also have added (and appropriately deleted) from the endorsement articles of both major candidates in the 2020 election. I don’t know what you mean when you say that you’ve heard this before. As for GeneralNotability, I’m not sure what your position is as you have not given much information, but the dog on your user page was a real stress reliever. If anyone would like to see my recent history. I am still productively editing, I just want to have the right to edit the article I’ve been working so hard on. Also, the other editor has still not been warned about edit warring so I feel this is more about content than actual edit warring Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need a clearer definition of "oppose". What we need is for you to understand that we'd need a source that clearly states that opposition. We *do not* make our own deductions based on what we think someone means by what they say. Your claim that "he has not thought about endorsing him" means he opposes is an example of making a deduction based on what you think he means when he says that - and that is forbidden by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH policies. You need to get that into your head, and make it clear you understand and will follow it, if you want any chance of having your sanction removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that when you say "I have taken the extra step to do research into people", you need to be very cautious. Wikipedia does not allow the results of its editors' research to be used in articles. Someone else must have done the research and had it published in a reliable source before we can use it. That's why only those Republicans who are open about their opposition are being added - because Wikipedia requires a clear statement of someone's position on an issue before you can state that position in an article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(EC) There are BLP concerns about your edits, which means edit warring concerns about the editor opposing you are reduced. Also User:Muboshgu is a very experienced editor so frankly WP:DTTR comes into play too. Anyway if you want to have any chance of editing that article or IMO any article involving living people, I think you need to demonstrate an understanding of WP:BLP. It's unacceptable that you think you can make original suppositions about someone based on their criticism, previous history or refusal to endorse. The criticism is particularly silly since most people who aren't sycophants have criticised a politician at times and this often includes their strong supporters. If you still don't understand maybe it will help to remember that the article is "List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign". It's not "list of Republicans who refused to endorse the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign". Nor is it "list of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign, so could oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign, who knows?" And it's definitely not "list of Republicans who criticised Donald Trump, so there's a slight chance they oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign". Heck it's not even clear to me if you understand the difference between someone who has explicitly refused to endorse a candidate, and someone who hasn't endorsed a candidate (e.g. no comment). IMO until you understand all this, don't go near anything involving living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Not understanding Twitter endorsements

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

---

Jason S. Goldstein has repeatedly been warned by me and other editors to not add Twitter endorsements. I have shown them multiple policies where It says they shouldn’t be included. The user has continually added them back and argued that they should be left. Every time I’ve explained that they are not and showed the proper policy, they say they understand but then continue to add back Twitter endorsements anyway. They have been warned several times. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried asking Jason S. Goldstein to stop. If they continue, maybe report them again. I'm not sure if there's need for any action yet. I note you said "warned by me and other editors to not add Twitter endorsements" but I cannot see anyone else who has spoken to them on the matter. I only see RandomCanadian speaking to them on something else. I even looked at User talk:Pennsylvania2#More Twitter Endorsements. Of course, the fact no one else has spoken to them isn't your fault and editors shouldn't need multiple editors to tell them to stop, but different ways of explaining and/or hearing it from more than one editor can help. BTW, it's probably better to link to the guideline Wikipedia:Political endorsements rather than the essay WP:ENDORSEMENTS. While the essay does mention and link to the guideline, it may give additional clarity especially for new editors unfamiliar with navigating our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Problematic user

Reporting this persistently problematic user who has a history of being disruptive: Xerxes931 (talk • contribs). Do take a look at their talk page. I recently noticed their POV pushing at Muhammad Iqbal. Placing a block on the user would save other editors's invaluable time but any correctional measure the administrators take is appreciated. Idell (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio on our part or their part?

I was browsing Wikipedia and came across the Aphasia article. I just did a copyvio search and got [3] and [4]. Doing a search with a revision from 2013 I got [5]. It seems like someone either 1) added content from their website to Wikipedia without properly licensing it first or 2) copied from Wikipedia without providing sufficient attribution. Can an admin investigate further what is going on? This seems very fishy. Aasim 07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems exists to investigate such cases. WilyD 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Although I note at least the first link is openly copying from Wikipedia, and not formatting the text to work on their site, so I think it's probably not a copyvio on our part there. WilyD 07:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• This definitely looks like they're copying us rather than the other way round. For a start your 2013 revision comes up as copying this, which is dated November 2014. [6] has a heading of "Aphasia - Wikipedia" halfway down the page. There are quite a few dodgy pages, often blogspot, which copy our content for some reason - I assume linkspam or SEO. Hut 8.5 09:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove rights

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

---

Please remove my "pending changes reviewer", "new page patroller", and "mass message sender" rights. I haven't used these in a while, and don't see myself putting them to use in the foreseeable future. I will request again, if needed. Thank you. KCVelaga (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Removal of permission

Borgatya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to inform you about the fact that this user is banned by WMF from editing. I guess the extra flag is not needed anymore. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We generally don't remove perms from indeffed users. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

On huwiki they're blocked as a sockpuppet of Peadar. If Google Translate isn't failing me, hu:Wikipédia:Szerkesztők_véleményezése/Peadar_(másodszor) indicates both paid editing and copyright concerns. What should be done with Borgatya's autopatrolled article creations on enwiki? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As Primefac noted, this is not something we do. There's no sense in it. El_C 04:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers, then I think there is nothing else to do. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleting a user page

I've blocked Rancidhairyacssunt for a username violation. Are there any grounds for deleting their user page or removing the image there? Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are grounds. I've removed the image. You probably don't want to look. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd already seen it. No need for that sort of image except in encyclopedic useage, which that wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I'll take it under advisement and not look but couldn't you just G3 it? Glen (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glen: I wasn't sure what it came under. None of the U categories seemed to fit. Which is why I asked here. The image has gone now, so there's nothing to see any more. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, just for future reference, the general categories (e.g. G3) can be used anywhere (subject to some specific exclusions), including user pages - that would have been a pretty uncontroversial vandalism G3 IMHO. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

When you see something like that, I'd say that best practice is to delete everything and ask a CU to look for sleepers. It's usually an LTA vandal. Misogynistic usernames, especially ones that reference women's reproductive system as disgusting or unclean, are usually Architect 134. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Noted. That'll teach him to thank me for an edit to a hidden template made for my own benefit. Not the sort of thing one would expect (or need) to be thanked for. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for permission to use files

I was blocked on April 2020 during six days from editing of non-free content policy violations. I was unblocked on 26 April 2020 with the condition of not using the files until I ask permission here. all about my blocking and unblocking is here. I ask for permission to be able to use the files on wikipedia again. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Faycal.09, please convince us that the restriction is not longer necessary. Sandstein 18:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The mistake I made in summary, is that I was going into an edit war with an admin bot. It is true that I warned the administrator but a little late. I understood my mistake and that's the reason why I was unblocked on the sixth day on April 2020 with conditions. Since April I have respected this condition. I contribute since 2009 and I have always tried to be exemplary on Wikipedia, I also uploaded a lot of files without problems. I wish to continue like this. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

An admin bot? You warned them? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would decline this request. You were not blocked for an "edit war with an admin bot", but for non-free content policy violations. Because you do not address this in your request, and do not convince me that you now understand the non-free content policy, I don't think that we can lift these restrictions at this time. Sandstein 08:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, CaptainEek, No I warned an admin, not the bot. I just gave a summary to explain the problem to you. I gave the detailed link there before, in my request here, so that you understand the problem. And of caurse the probleme was because the non-free content policy violations. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I warned the admin here. And I explained about my mistakes, what I do and what I will not do here. Sorry for my english who is not very good. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't just lift topic bans because people ask. You will need to show that the ban is no longer necessary because you understand what the problem was, and won't do it again. While not 100% relevant, you might wish to read the guide to appealing blocks for a good idea of how we want unblock/unban requests to be made. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, also all the discussions in April are stale so I suggest you write a new reasoning here if you'd like an unban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, what about my mistake, I violated Wikipedia rules, I made a mistake by adding file fixed by a bot in draft pages and reverting this file too, I did not contact admin on first.

Uploading or using files to wikipedia is not an easy thing, laws of Wikipedia:Non-free content must be respected. We must favorising the free content post and good use of non-free content, respecting criteria of fair use. We must respect the ten criterias used in Policy chapter. We must be informed of files that should be kept or deleted as it's explained in Enforcement chapter. All tiis of caurse is mentionned in Guideline examples chapter.

On April, it was the first time when I was blocked, my wish is to be the last one. My apologies for all that. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion backlog

There is a pretty severe backlog at WP:AFD. Discussions dating all the way back to the 23rd are still open and awaiting closure. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal "100th anniversary of the Azerbaijani police" looks like a keep, but the rest from the 23rd and 24th appear to be no consensus.

Also, while unrelated, Hypnotic Illusions has been sitting in CSD limbo for over 24 hours and should be nuked per A9. This one puzzles me more as there currently isn't a speedy backlog. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding redirect request on Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement

There is a redirect request in AfC, on Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement. But the Unicode blocks are create protected and restricted to admins: [7]. Requesting admin review on whether they are allowed to be created or not.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 05:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist restricts creation of titles containing them but MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist allows them as single characters. In the request some of these are combined with a circle ◌ but I don't know if that is intended; it is not in the existing redirect mentioned there, or in the first requested redirect. Peter James (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem trying to set up an Articles for deletion page

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

---

Could an administrator help me, please? I have made a dreadful mess of trying to set up a page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Webb (medical physicist) . I realized that I had misread the instructions, but my efforts to recover the situation resulted in an even deeper hole. The reason for suggesting deletion is:

The subject of the article has made it known that he is unhappy with the way the article has been edited and he would now prefer it to be deleted.

LynwoodF (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

LynwoodF, go to [8] and activate Twinkle. This will enable a menu that will allow you to automatically nominate Steve Webb (medical physicist) for deletion. However, with the reason provided above it is unlikely that the article will be deleted unless you can also show that the subject fails WP:N. That's because we seldom take into account the subject's wishes (see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), and even then we'd need a record of the subject's wishes. Sandstein 10:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you for your rapid response. I had heard of Twinkle, but I did not know what it did. LynwoodF (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Unban me

I remember I was banned for creating useless redirects on 24 March 2020 (link) and was directed to use WP:AFC/R. Now, 6 months are passed since then and I realised how cheap and costly the redirects really are. Therefore, I will only create redirects when necessary. Therefore, please unban me. Thanks. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Your math is off. 6 months would be on the 24th of this month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, and I would strongly advise a wider ban to cover all redirects, broadly construed, so Soumya is no longer able to be disruptive at WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. Besides the blunt "unban me", the request does not show that Soumya understands WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY. Looking at Soumya's contributions at RfD lately, we find: a RENOM violation for a redirect already hashed to death, asserting without evidence that WPJ is an abbreviation for WikiProject, asserting without evidence that Sprache has multiple meanings, misunderstanding of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a weird obsession with J947 (this is the best example of many), etc. Soumya also has several low quality AFC/R submissions, including: Shampooing, Honkong, and constantly trying redirects with "He", including: He Spaceship Company and He Origin of Species several days after being explained why the previous one was no good. I can keep going if necessary, but I'm exhausted only going back to August 20th. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• As long as we are here, per Tavix, continue current ban and broaden to cover all redirect matters, broadly construed, including WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. There are millions of articles in need of improvement. Surely Soumya-8974 can find constructive edits to make that don't involve redirects. I urge them to edit constructively in non redirect areas for another six months before asking to be allowed to come back to redirects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  I mainly find spaceflight, rocketry, aircraft, and solar system-related articles interesting, and performing page moves, which form redirects, violates my current ban. So I would have to perform WP:RM/TR instead. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum – I have recently joined at WP:WPREDIRECT to discuss about redirects, in order not to disrupt Wikipedia's redirect system. If someone topic bans me on redirect, then it will prevent me to do such discussion. Also, I am suffering in Wikipedia vaguely similar to the Pandavas in the Mahabharata. They spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise. If Kauravas found them in this period, then they would spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise again. In my opinion, it should be best to open WP:AFC/R at least. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Username violation

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

---

this user appears to violate Wikipedia:Username policy. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, the proper place to report username violations is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. The handy shortcut is WP:UAA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: What part? Promotional I guess? (Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign) Considering they only made one edit a week ago, this report probably just makes it worse. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, having the username of a notable person is against policy. Reporting them now lets them change their username before they continue any further editing. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv, KrakatoaKatie, and Xeno.

The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process.

This year's timeline is as follows:

• 7 September to 19 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
• 20 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 27 September to 7 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 14 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 22:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Александр Мотин

Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has twice pushed a primary study reported in the Lancet into Gam-COVID-Vac[9][10] into the Gam-COVID-Vac article. The second insertion being a restoration of material added by ManishSahu53. The primary source has been removed by both Alexbrn and me.

The page is under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and has a specific page-restriction: "Editors are prohibited from adding biomedical content without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in this article." stated on the talk page and repeated in the edit notice. Александр Мотин was [11] made aware of the general sanctions on 21 August 2020 by Salvio giuliano.

The Lancet is indeed a prestigious journal, but the report it published of the preliminary study is still a primary source. Our guidance at WP:MEDRS is quite clear:

"all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources ... Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content".

Александр Мотин received an indefinite topic ban from the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article in June for disruptive editing, and is now displaying similar behaviour at Gam-COVID-Vac he has a strong pro-Russian stance and tends to accuse those who disagree with him of editing in a biased manner. This clear breach of the general sanction on the article, coupled with his combative stance leads me to conclude that he should be editing articles related to Gam-COVID-Vac, and probably not any articles related to Russia. I am therefore seeking consensus from concerned admins for at least an indefinite topic ban from Gam-COVID-Vac, and I am seeking opinions on whether it should extend to all Russia-related articles, or even from editing at all. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with a topic ban from at least any topic related to Russia - while I have no clue what went on with Malaysia Airlines flight 17, it's clear to me from this user's actions on the GAM vaccine link and others that the user is only here to push Russian propagandist point of view, not to build an encyclopedia. Whether this is because they are themselves only being given certain information, or because they are intentionally trying to be biased, I don't know - but regardless, it's detrimental to the encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure a topic ban from Russia is the right move. Aleksandr Motin's edits to Russian railroad-related articles are quite productive, but I can definitely see how edits loosely pertaining to Russian politics can be problematic. A narrower topic ban might be more beneficial to the project. --WMSR (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• It's a ridiculous ADMINSHOPPING with distorted facts. Yesterday they already asked another admin to block me. But I suppose I was supported in that dispute. Just check this thread. Obviously they want to block the user with a neutral point of view. Also check the article's talk page, especially "Guinea pig" section where these editors were trying to prove that calling the president a "guinea pig" is quite normal for WP articles. It is no less outrageous that they want to forbid writing about The Lancet's peer-review while The Lancet is a very strong RS/MEDRS and they know it. --Александр Мотин (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• We had this less than a month ago. We are having this right now (note how the discussion escalated as soon as Александр Мотин joined it). The problem with Александр Мотин's editing is that whereas their understanding of the policies is limited he is absolute sure that he knows everything. He is just unable to admit that he might be wrong and anybody else could be right. If people are unhappy with his edits, this is not because he is doing something wrong but because others either do not understand the policies or are biased against him. This is how they got an indef block (an analog of a site ban) on the Russian Wikipedia. This is how he got partially blocked from MH17 here. And every time the community spends an enormous amount of time to sort this behavior out. I would advocate a site ban just to save our time, but at the very list we need a topic ban on Russian politics broadly construed, or even on Russia broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Just another portion of distorted facts by this Russian administrator who is biased (question #10) against voluntary association Wikimedia Russia and its members which is a Russian office of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Ymblanter is very tactfully silent (in bad sense) about the fact that I started a discussion here and it was he who escalated this issue to a Wikiproject "Trains" talk page. And now he is accusing me of what he did. And yeah, check the vaccine's talk page. Just look, at first they said that we need strong RS/MEDRS, and then when these sources (without Russophobic rebukes) appeared (The Lancet), these sources immediately turned into unacceptable ones. P.S. Ymblanter is also silent about the fact that the case of indef block in RU WP is still being investigated for almost a year because the admin, who indef blocked me, was previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for another faulty indef block and his adminship may be revoked. But Ymblanter wasn't even going to mention it. And I think it's clear why. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Ymblanter. Александр is clearly escalating disputes, causing good people to lose patience, and, per the above, assuming bad faith on the part of those who voice obviously legitimate criticism. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• You think I'm against legitimate criticism? I started the article with criticism. Then I added more criticism. But this does not mean that, for instance, I must call the President of the country a Guinea pig in order to please someone here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• You may not like me, but I do nothing to undermine Wikipedia and I'm not going to.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on all Russia- (read former Soviet Union)-related topics. Have recently come across this editor at WT:TWP. Seems to have major problems working collaboratively with other editors. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88 unblock request

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

---

A discussion is taking place at User talk:Hijiri88#Unblock discussion as to whether to unblock Hijiri88. Further community response is requested there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Deepfriedokra: wants all the primary discussion in one place, which is fine, but this is a meta-query. Is this getting community agreement in the sense that a CBAN would need it, or is it more like a "extra eyes wanted"? Are the two one and the same in unblock discussions? If the editor is not currently CBANNED, would a turned down unblock request now implement one, as would normally be the case? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion was moved to talk page

Oppose I have been at ANI three times with this editor and my worst experiences on the project have been with Hijiri88. I even have an informal IBAN that Floquenbeam initiated because of the friction between us (Hijiri88 violated it almost straight away and then caught a 7 day block which lasted less than a day after an apology) Here is is promise to stay away from any reference to me which he later violated by using a string of terrible PAs to reference me. Reyk is always first to defend Hijiri88, and even levels his own PAs in defense. I could link to the many times the editor followed me, or typed harsh words about me, but this unblock request is about Hijiri88 wanting to turn over a new leaf. I think the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and so I will attempt to go through previous attempts by administrators and community to get Hijiri88 to work collegially on the project. Hijiri88 claims to have reflected and turned over a new leaf, but a big question we need to ask is why none of his previous sanctions caused him to do that. Apart from the 12 blocks on his block log, he's also needed six IBANs with other users (Tristan Noir, Catflap08, TH1980, John Carter, Darkknight2149, and Dream Focus), and an entire Arbcom case centering around his behavior that resulted in a topic ban and 1RR restriction.[12] You'd be hard-pressed to find another Wikipedia user who has needed as many IBANs as Hijiri88, but he hardly takes responsibility for them. These were all two-way IBANs imposed due to poor behavior on both sides, but he still falsely insists that they "were put in place at my request to protect me from one-way hounding" or "were imposed under very questionable circumstances". One of the reasons he is indefinitely blocked right now is for violating an IBAN on his talk page while already indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, and yet in his unblock request he doesn't even mention his IBAN violation or apologize for it or explain in any way why he won't violate his IBANs again. His last IBAN violation was extremely blatant, and yet he had already denied even being aware that it was a violation.[13] Robert McClenon asked the question in 2019 about whether Hijiri88 "got off easy" at Arbcom, and I think there's evidence that he did. Hijiri88 got off his Arbcom-imposed topic ban because he said "I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats", but then denied having made the very same threat he had apologized for.[14] He has repeatedly gone back on his earlier repentance, later stating that Arbcom case occurred because another user "managed to convince nine members of ArbCom that I should be TBANned for having let him get under my skin" or that "ArbCom really dropped the ball". There is good evidence to suggest that Hijiri88 has been insincere in his unblock requests where he claims to have reflected on his poor behavior. For example, when Hijiri88 was blocked in 2018 he claimed that he was blocked due to a simple miscommunication, but Boing! said Zebedee pointed out that that was a false statement.[15] Hijiri88 withdrew that claim in a subsequent unblock request, so Boing! said Zebedee unblocked him, but less than a week later, he was again claiming that he was blocked only due to a miscommunication (plus again denying the validity of his previous blocks and IBANs).[16] Is Hijiri88 being sincere this time about having reflected on his conduct? I have my doubts. On his talk page, he still calls me a "filthy, repulsive degenerate" along with dozens of other users, despite having had ample time to delete that personal attack.[17] (diff) As Floquenbeam noted, "Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here." Why didn't he take Cullen328's warning to him in 2018: "You seem to thrive on such little drama fests... Do not get into a single solitary editing dispute for nine years. Just walk away. The alternative is an indefinite block."? Hijiri88 says that he's going to stay away from contentious AfD discussion and the article on Mottainai from now on. If he is unblocked, those restrictions should be made formal. We also should consider whether a person who has been repeatedly been given chance after chance can ever work collaboratively on the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC) @Lightburst: You'll probably want to move this comment to User talk:Hijiri88#Unblock discussion, where the discussion is happening. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC) I think Deepfriedokra was correct that this should be a community discussion and not a discussion on a talk page. Just in case I posted there also, so thank you. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC) I think it's a community discussion that is well underway on Hijiri's talk page. There was some concern that posting here might be contra productive; there was some concern that it should be here. Splitting hairs, babies, and camel. Notice here; discussion there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Deepfriedokra thank you for the message. That makes sense. Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - At least he's asking the community for reinstatement. He could've easily gone the sock-puppet route, but didn't. So give the lad praise for that. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What about the meat puppet route instead? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Who are the meat-puppets? GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEAT. In a nutshell. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay didn't ask "What is a meat puppet?", but "Who are the meat-puppets?". If you're making an accusation, then make it already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit too tired to decipher cryptic insinuations today. Can you be a bit more clear about what you actually mean? Besides, meatpuppets probably describes Hijiri's pursuers more accurately than Hijiri. Reyk _YO! 15:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Refering to Lugnuts statement above....Part of the reason why Hijiri88 had his talk page access removed until recently was because he asked another user to make edits for him while he was still blocked.[18] And it was also noted in a 2018 Arbcom clarification request that he frequently has asked other users to make edits for him that violate his own editing restrictions.[19] I have no idea whether he would sockpuppet, though it's worth noting that the IP accounts that he often edits with were still active during his current block.[20] Lightburst (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero: Can you confirm whether Hijiri had TP access removed due to "ask[ing] another user to make edits for him while he was still blocked"? Thought it was for alleged IBAN violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: It was for an IBAN violation --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with Japanese internet stuff, which I guess is most people, that's a Wi2 IP. Wi2 is a company that offers short-term rental hotspots and a public wifi app, so one would expect different users to use an IP as the provider recycles it. I hope it isn't true that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, but in any event we should be careful about sock/meat speculation. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

RFC closure review

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § RFC closure review

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The closure of RFC by MrX at MEK talk page is questioned by the participants. I think the closure note is not fairly evaluating the comments based on the guidelines. More significantly, MrX says my "detailed argument was adroitly rebutted by Barca's". This is while, in response to my comment, BarcrMac said that "Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article". Though BarcrMac never replied to my further comments, I am asking it here: Do we only include 'proved points' or we should go by the reliable sources? Furthermore, MrX fails to address this comment by Ali Ahwazi which focuses on the POV issue of the proposed sentence. Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Community close reviews usually go at WP:AN not ANI, as this isn't a "urgent, chronic, intractable behavioural problem". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is a major divergence from the status quo. The closing summary is wholly insufficient. It lacks key substance. It also, as a result, comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. As the uninvolved admin who has the most experience with this article, I take a dim view of this closure. El_C 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to prohibit sitting arbitrators from serving as members of the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee in accordance with a community RfC. Comments on the motion are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

How do we handle content that describes a movie's revenue and success? Is it an issue per NPOV?

Hi everyone! I hope that you're all having a great labor day! I'm on call with my job, so I'm unfortunately tied to my desk at home through the entire week when I'm not at work.  :-) I have a question and a possible concern about something that I've noticed on and on, numerous times, over the years that I've patrolled recent changes. On many articles where the subject is a movie or film, they often include content in a section or even the summary paragraph talking about the film's success. They often comprise of sentences such as "this film achieved significant critical and commercial success", "was praised by critics and fans", etc - as well as the opposite when a film or movie doesn't become a "box office success" (as it's often called), or doesn't make more money than it cost to create. I'm slightly concerned that these statements might be an issue in regards to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Statements like these come off to me as opinionated, that we're saying that this film was a success or failure, and that we're taking sources and summarizing them with an opinionated statement. I'm not sure how we should consider these statements, and whether or not they're appropriate in regards to NPOV. Is there a discussion or consensus somewhere stating that these kinds of statements are appropriate? A portal project that states such? What are your thoughts when you see statements like these in film-related articles? I'm sure you've all seen them on articles like this, and I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm talking about. I need some guidance, and I don't know how to handle these edits when I see them get added. Can you offer me assistance? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, definitely not neutral. I remove this when I find it. Even worse, what many editors do is compare a film's budget to how much it grossed. If the gross is higher than the budget, they call it a "box office success". This is not how it works. Studios have to share revenue with the cinemas, so you can't just compare the two numbers and decide, "it's a success!" The same is true of failures. Studios have various ways of writing off costs. A film that underperforms may eventually turn a profit once the accountants are done with their magic, and a film that grosses twice as much as its budget may still end up losing money. We can't know. The issues with reviews are more straightforward, but we already have two review aggregators to tell us what critics thought: Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. We don't need Wikipedians to give us their synthy interpretations on top that. The reason why is because everyone thinks their favorite film was critically acclaimed, but the films they disliked were a critical failure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, MOS:FILM is where most film-related guidelines end up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not the correct noticeboard, but I will answer anyway. How well a film did critically and commercially is a matter of interpretation and should be reliably sourced to an article that says that. We should say that Citizen Cane, Casablanca, etc. are highly regarded, just as we would say the same about Shakespeare's plays or Dickens' novels. Whether or not they were good movies is a matter of opinion, but whether critics assess them highly is a matter of fact.

Commercial success is not subjective. Any business enterprise can be evaluated based on profit. Because there is insufficient information for writers of reliable sources to calculate profit, they usually look at North American box office receipts = production costs as break even.

TFD (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are looking for relevant NPOV policy, it looks like you want WP:AESTHETIC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. RS will describe the commercial performance of any notable commercial film (e.g., Hollywood films), and for any notable film, RS will describe how it was received by critics and the general public. So box office success and this film achieved significant critical and commercial success are OK if that's how the RSes describe it (and they commonly describe films using those phrases),but they're not the best phraseology. More "showing" than "telling" would be better, e.g., was one of the top 10 highest-grossing films of the year is better than "box office success" and was nominated for an Academy Award is better than "achieved significant critical success". But at bottom, it's not promotional to describe how a film fared commercially or how it was received by critics; those are important aspects of a film; a film's impact on the world is as important as, say, who directed it. Lev!vich 05:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with TFD. I'll add that WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are important when writing about how a film is regarded.   // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to the above by TFD and Levivich, I'll just add that the LEAD should be written in summary style so there needs to be reliable sourcing to back-up the statements. If there is no body, there needs to be that reliable sourcing built right into the lead. And if we're in the body there's nothing wrong with saying "X was generally well received" as an introduction to 10 favorable reviews to follow. NPOV doesn't mean we fail to acknowledge that things were liked by critics/awards or that it lost a lot of money, it means we give it in proportion to RS. So if it was generally well received we should reflect that, but we should also, in proper proportion, include less flattering or negative receptions of the material. With movies there will be RS that we can use to decide whether to say if something was a bomb - a term so notable in the industry it has its own article and we can reflect that without running into issues with our core content policies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for unblock backlog - 80+ to review

There are current 81 requests for unblock at Category:Requests_for_unblock. Many of them have been ones that most of the usual unblock request reviewers have already weighed in on, so fresh eyes are needed since we can't review the same user. Please consider lending a hand. only (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look. I'll do that today. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Lou Brock

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

---

Lou Brock died today. As is usual, the DuckDuckGo search page for his name returns Wikipedia stats; his birth, death, height, etc.

For some reason you chose to show his height as 5-11" and then in parenthesis note that he was the same height as Carl Yazstemski.

This seems disrespectful of Brock because his height has no bearing on Yazstremski and vice versa.

Worse, there is no way (that I can see) to edit this non-germane "fact" out from the Brock summary. Very disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.48.43 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo is run by a by a different organization to Wikipedia and we have no control over the content they show. The article Lou Brock doesn't even mention a height, so this is likely from a different source. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Ban appeal of Peterjack1

Peterjack1 is banned from editing per WP:3X. The following is their appeal of the ban, which I am posting here as a courtesy only. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have consistently made productive and useful edits to Wikipedia. I am clearly here in good faith and I don’t believe my indefinite ban was ever just. The consequences for “edit warring” are too severe, and often I was protecting a page from vandals who would refuse to use a talk page and got punished for it. Edit warring should be punishable by being blocked from the specific page instead of the entire encyclopedia. 90% of my edits have been productive and mistakes from when I first started out over a year ago shouldn’t follow me forever. In addition, the way “Sockpuppetry” is addressed in unfair and authoritarian. A Sockpuppet shouldn’t be blocked just for that if they aren’t a vandal, a Sockpuppet should just get a longer sentence if they break another rule. For almost a year as Smith0124 I made constructive edits. I never used any alternate account to cause any harm. Second, an edit should be judged on its own merits and not by who made it. An edit that is constructive or that combats vandalism shouldn’t be reverted just because it was made by a “Sockpuppet”. That’s counterproductive and against Wikipedia’s philosophy. Third, “Check Users” have too much power. A random person on the internet is “vetted“ by other random people on the internet and given powers to stalk people and find out their location, internet provider, and more. That’s a gross violation of personal privacy and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s illegal. Point is, I’ve been a helpful to Wikipedia and I should be allowed to edit freely. I’ve tried my best the whole time to make good edits and to do the right thing. Peterjack1 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Link to ANI thread that led to Oshwah blocking for one month. There are issues not dealt with in this unblock request. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Technical point Only in the original SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peterjack1/Archive) was their checkuser confirmation. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is entirely correct. Although not documented in the SPI, there are at least 3 socks in August which seem to have been CU based, see my comment below. It's also possible that Special:Contributions/Smith0124 who is in the SPI in January but was inconclusive was in part based on CU data when eventually blocked in June. It's not important in any case. If the editor wants to propose greater restrictions on CU, they will need to stop socking, then make a successful unblock appeal, then make a proposal as a good standing member of the community. I don't think such a proposal has much chance of success. If the editor believes a CU violated policy, they are welcome to appeal to the appropriate parties. If the editor believes some law has been broken, they are welcome to contact an appropriate government agency although they will have to remain blocked while they navigate that no matter what, per WP:NLT. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC

Please see check user comment below regarding recent socking/block evasion. I will note that in my experience, unblock requests like this are sometimes preceded by blocking of the most current socks. User can always appeal to the ARBCOM or Meta:Ombuds commission, but they are not eligible for relief here. (I can see how they wish the checkusers would not check them). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Their recent activity was met with some very long blocks on the IP addresses they've been using, and you're probably right that that inspired them to appeal rather than create new accounts they won't be able to use anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Only giving a longer sentence if you were evading a block, and not stopping the evasion, would be a bit pointless, don't you think? Alt accounts aren't an issue when unblocked if you meet the rules, which Peter did not. It's not really relevant to the appeal, but Peter may want to take a look at what information he gives to any website he visits, as opposed to the minimal CU data. It does look like the editor has never apologised for the initial issue (though they have for the socking) but the fact that it was 3X also suggests they're rather incapable of taking a hint. I'm not aware of the nature of their edits while socking, and if indeed "only" evading blocks rather than continuing to be damaging, there is hope for a future unblock, but not at this point Nosebagbear (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline Oh, good grief. @Peterjack1:, please. Reread the WP:GAB. This is a textbook example of what not to do. In short, it's all about the wrongness of the block, of the policies, of the community-- need I go on? In the future, please describe what you did wrong and how you will do things differently. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline I'd choose to use this as an example of how to NOT request an un-ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. Wow. I'm actually almost enthralled by how brazenly against WP:NOTTHEM this is. Third, “Check Users” have too much power. That's a spectacular example of a user who is not going to mesh well with the editing ethos of Wikipedia.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the veiled legal threat. That truly is brilliant. Practically ticked off all the boxes.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Decline in addition to the good points above about how terrible this request is, there are at least 3 socks in August, the most recent one being blocked under 2 weeks ago Special:Contributions/Monadnock20. (Also Special:Contributions/Springs24 and Special:Contributions/Tedm03.) Even with a perfect request, the community will have trouble believing you're going to stop socking with a record like that. As always wait at least 6 months and probably longer with zero socks if you want to have any chance. In the mean time, consider your behaviour so you can make a better appeal next time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Obvious decline. But "The rules I broke are all wrong" is ambitious, you have to give him that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Checkuser comment: some of you have sussed it out already but Peterjack1 is  Confirmed to Smith0124 (talk · contribs), Springs24 (talk · contribs), and Tedm03 (talk · contribs), the last two of which were actively editing only two weeks ago. They meet the threshold to be re-banned under WP:3X based on just their activity in the last three months, never mind all their past abuse of multiple accounts. We have to leave un-ban discussions open for 72 hours now but this is going to be an archetype of why WP:SNOW should be available to these requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify from WP:CBAN Regarding the 72 hour rule "For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours." (emphasis mine). In this case, that 24 hour rule would most certainly apply. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)