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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	37	0	37
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	20	0	20
AfD	0	0	3	0	3

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 132 sockpuppet investigations
• 7 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 59 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 21 requested closures
• 65 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 7970 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski 2024-07-01 01:51 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Star Mississippi Empire of Japan 2024-06-29 23:23 2024-07-29 23:23 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik File talk:Yes check.svg 2024-06-29 20:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Draft:Jaan Say Pyara Juni 2024-06-29 19:03 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector Template:Onesource 2024-06-29 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2601 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Saraswat Brahmin 2024-06-29 14:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Kalki 2898 AD 2024-06-29 14:41 2024-10-11 05:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing ToBeFree Talk:Maheshwari Flag 2024-06-29 08:13 2024-07-02 08:13 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Cristiano Ronaldo Jr 2024-06-29 05:41 indefinite edit,move Per AFD discussion Liz S-500 missile system 2024-06-29 00:05 indefinite edit extending protection indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement per CTOPS) Swatjester Karhade Brahmin 2024-06-28 23:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Generation Beta 2024-06-28 19:06 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; regular attempts to restore article from redirect Daniel Case Chavda dynasty 2024-06-28 16:41 indefinite edit,move Sock puppetry resumed after previous protection expired Abecedare Chavda (Rajput clan) 2024-06-28 16:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; battling sock armies; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Draft:Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD António Costa 2024-06-28 14:51 2025-06-28 14:51 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Moruf Oseni 2024-06-28 13:26 indefinite edit,move for AfD improvement by established editors Star Mississippi Battle of Tel Hai 2024-06-28 12:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Amana (organization) 2024-06-28 12:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Bağanıs Ayrım 2024-06-28 12:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Stuart Brotman 2024-06-27 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart N. Brotman. Should go through AfC Star Mississippi Puri (surname) 2024-06-27 20:24 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing CambridgeBayWeather Anfal campaign 2024-06-27 20:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Russo-Circassian War 2024-06-27 19:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Ideology of Palestinian Islamic Jihad 2024-06-27 19:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Template:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler 2024-06-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Bania (caste) 2024-06-27 17:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Vikidia 2024-06-27 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Filippo Berto 2024-06-27 09:06 2024-12-24 08:42 edit,move upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Bay of Pigs 2024-06-27 08:39 indefinite move Move warring Lectonar Rajputs in Gujarat 2024-06-27 05:12 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare Agri (caste) 2024-06-27 05:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Other Backward Class 2024-06-27 05:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Monashee Spirits 2024-06-27 04:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Robertsky Thakor 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Thakur (title) 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare

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)

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)

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)

TryKid, yes, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists. It's still nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 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)

Kailash29792, then source to third party plot summaries. Simples. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 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 [2] and [3]. Doing a search with a revision from 2013 I got [4]. 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. [5] 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: [6]. 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 [7] 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)

• Wait, by "disguise" are you suggesting you will WP:SOCK? I highly urge you to withdraw this before your topic ban is converted to a WP:CIR block. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:33, 9 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[8][9] 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 [10] 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)

Note the user is still, even after being informed of this thread, attempting to take the word "candidate" out of the article without consensus based on single non MEDRS sources. The user is clearly only here to push a point of view, even if they try to hide it by sometimes including some "criticism". I’ll note also that they have attempted to argue against the term "guinea pig" even after being explained it is a common term in the English language to refer to a "first tester" - showing they are not listening to others - while the term was ultimately removed it was for a different reason and it wasn’t “outrageous”. They also claim again that the lancet primary source is MEDRS, which it isn’t. A topic ban is necessary since they refuse to listen. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:13, 8 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)
• Support site ban. Editor is a total time-sink. Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oh dear, I'm seeing a very aggressive and tendentious approach here, no effort to listen to and understand what other people are saying, and a habit of responding to disagreement with personal attacks. I support an indefinite topic ban from Covid-19, and an indefinite topic ban on Russia-related topics, both broadly construed. I don't know if that might constitute an effective site ban, or whether that would be a better alternative, but I wouldn't oppose it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the "site-range" ban, overkill measure, one would resort to generating a new account, maybe by chainging ISP/mobile operator. ALSO: Motin only failed to grasp the concept of WP:MEDRS, which requires to avoid single researches, and rely only on meta-analyses. ALSO: the article in question, Gam-COVID-Vac is mainly about the Summer 2020 scandal around it, not the vaccine candidate itself.

  However, I do support removing Motin from any Russia-related and medical topics, since Мотин even fails to reply to me in Russian; and brandished "basic English" plaque on his page. Uchyotka (talk) 20:54, 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.[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14] 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).[15] 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.[16] (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.[17] 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.[18] 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.[19] 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

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § 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)

@El C: I don't know what "major divergence from the status quo" means in the context of the RfC, or even how it would be a factor in overturning a RfC closing. Perhaps you could elaborate. Also, what is your basis for saying that my close comes across as a supervote? Implicit in that is the notion that I am involved, or have a stake in the outcome? - MrX 🖋 11:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned that you have the most experience with this article, but I don't see that you have ever closed an RfC or adjudicated any other content dispute on the subject.[20] As far as I can tell, you have protected the article seven times and suppressed copyright violations.[21] - MrX 🖋 12:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: RfCs have become the only means for editors to advance the editing process in that contentious page. Even then, these RfCs take months to be reviewed, and when they are, they often close in "no consensus" based on the difficulties surrounding them. Every once in a while an uninvolved and experienced editor steps up and gracefully offers to break the stalemate that are these Talk page discussions, as Mr.X has done for us here. Complaining every time one of these RfCs doesn't go our way (as Mhhossein has been doing) seems to defeat the only means available for a consensus-building process in that page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

All the closures can be reviewed. You should not be concerned if you think the closure is appropriate since the admins will look after it. Moreover, RFCs should not be mis-used to reshape the article according to one's desired version by tag-teaming or like. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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)

Furthermore And this is something I find truly remarkable-- the inability to edit constructively with the sock puppets. The same pattern of behavior emerges and leads to blocking irrespective of the block evasion. If user had created new accounts while avoiding problems, they might have proceeded unimpeded. The most recent of these socks was blocked in August, lending credence to my speculation about sock blocking leading to unblock requests. User is not eligible to even think about unblocking till February 2021. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:29, 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)

Well I'm glad to see that in there, but even that is more time than we owe this appeal, by about 23 and a half hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pile-on decline. Yawn. --Rschen7754 18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Creating a page

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

---

I can't create a page, not even my own user page or my sandbox. Can you enable those for me? Also, it says I need to log in or create an account, but I would prefer not to. 2601:1C2:4E00:B89:D079:95A0:153D:FC43 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really an administrator issue, but you cannot directly create articles as an IP user, you will need to use Articles for creation to create article drafts. You can't create a user page unless you have an account. I would suggest that you ask questions at the Teahouse or Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm under false accusation of vandalism

Certain unregistered user is constantly vandalizing an article about Melissa Hutchison (by claiming her to have a voice role that is already confirmed to be someone else's and probably with different IP addresses. But when I undid his/her edits, he/she wrote to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism under IP address 49.144.196.63 and claim I would have stolen "his/her" username. Ad Orientem has already declined that IP user's request, but that IP now demands a revision from logs and sockpuppet investigations. If that IP user doesn't know my email address, then I could easily prove that I am the real CAJH. But if the IP user would find out my email, what other ways there would be for me to prove my innocence? CAJH (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

IP notified of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• In the absence of evidence that an account has been compromised the presumption is that it has not. In this situation, the burden of proof lies with the IP. When I declined the AIV report I did so because they did not make any claim of specific actionable conduct, much less offer evidence. And there were no warnings on your talk page. So I don't really know what is going on here. At the moment I am inclined to call this a nothing burger, but if the IP wants to chime in and offer some kind of explanation we can go from there. Otherwise, I'd just move on and come back if the situation pops up again down the road. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment as long as you're the only editor that can log in to User:CAJH there's no real likelihood of confusing you with an IP editor or doppleganger account (or fake sockpuppet). The WP:AIV reports appear to be (correctly) ignored. (the possibility of you being a sock of TCCJH (talk · contribs) which last edited in 2010 can be safely ignored even if you were the same person) ((templates are hard, let's go shopping)) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I originally created CAJH when I registered as a user in Finnish version of Wikiquotes. TCCJH was created for Wikipedia before I realized that CAJH can be used in all Wikimedia sites. Ever since I realized that, I stopped using TCCJH. CAJH (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked CAJH2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as an impersonator. It's pretty clearly attempting a Joe Job. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• @CAJH:, you can redirect the old user page and user talk page to the new. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I redirect them? Aren't they a little bit different case than an article page? CAJH (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)