Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	5	34	39
TfD	0	0	1	9	10
MfD	0	0	1	5	6
FfD	0	0	1	4	5
RfD	0	0	0	98	98
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 10 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 15 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 14 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 50 sockpuppet investigations
• 35 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 14 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 39 requests for RD1 redaction
• 34 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 110 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 10 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 8475 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:22 2025-03-28 14:22 edit Disruption by autoconfirmed users Black Kite 2025 FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:21 2025-03-28 14:21 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Black Kite FIFA Club World Championship 2024-09-28 14:19 2024-10-05 05:13 edit At least one of the disruptive accounts was autoconfirmed Black Kite 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike 2024-09-28 13:18 indefinite edit Move warring: Move requests only from this point on El C Thirumagal (TV series) 2024-09-28 12:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Ali Karaki 2024-09-28 11:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Samthar State 2024-09-28 09:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq 27 September 2024 Beirut strikes 2024-09-28 02:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Gangwar (surname) 2024-09-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:R from book 2024-09-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2509 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah) 2024-09-26 22:28 indefinite edit Highly visible page I've posted the article to the main page, so if the decision is to move the page, the admin who moves it should simultaneously adjust the resulting main page redirect. Schwede66 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence 2024-09-26 17:25 2024-10-07 14:13 edit Persistent vandalism TParis Hunter Schafer 2024-09-26 08:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBGS ToBeFree United Nations Security Council Resolution 2749 2024-09-26 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Turha 2024-09-26 02:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Demographics of Somalia 2024-09-26 00:12 2026-09-26 00:12 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Kalachuri (Rajput clan) 2024-09-25 20:35 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Tron (cryptocurrency) 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard Justin Sun 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard Philadelphi Corridor 2024-09-25 04:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Thejo Kumari Amudala 2024-09-25 03:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz South Lebanon Army 2024-09-24 23:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Casliber Talk:23 September 2024 Lebanon strikes 2024-09-24 21:45 2024-10-01 21:45 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (17 September 2024 – present) 2024-09-24 18:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP A/I Ad Orientem Template:R from category navigation 2024-09-24 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea who is responsible for the above, but any way; I have no interest in editing meta.wikimedia.org, but I hope some standards are upheld there? I followed the link to the survey, and I notice banned editor Slowking4 there posting "anti-social users that harm the project, i.e. Fram, and his enablers."[1], and this kind of rather extreme personal attack (on a discussion about how to deal with harassment!) is left alone for 4 days now. If the WMF can't even keep their own pages harassment-free, then perhaps they shouldn't try to impose a UCOC or to deal with supposed harassers based on secret evidence and so on? Fram (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has now been archived by a WMFer working on the anti-harassment team, without removing or addressing the offending comment. If they can't even patrol and act upon personal attacks and harassment on their own pages about the very subject, they have no business lecturing or supervising other sites. It won't stop them of course, it never does. Fram (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: meh I regularly see worse on these boards with zero action including removal, and that's even been from you, so it seems lame to make a big deal over that one comment. Especially since it's on meta, which is a community site, rather than a WMF site, even if it was their survey and so I assume they retained the right to override the meta community if they desired. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a discussion started by WMF, closed by WMF, about actions to be taken by the WMF. Actions specifically directed against harassment, by an organisation which tries to create an image as if they care about harassment (in general, not just against their own) and is giving the strong impression that they will impose such rules and regulations (like the UCOC). I improved my approach after the whole framban thing, even though the WMF way of handling things was disastrous. I'm not trying to make a big deal about this statement directed against me (I've seen worse this week on enwiki), but to highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the WMF acting as our saviours against big bad editors, whenthey can't even keep discussions they started attack-free. It's not even part of a heated discussion, where people cross a line in a back-and-forth (not acceptable, but much more understandable), but an out-of-the-blue comment by an editor banned here (and elsewhere) since many, many years, who feels the need to insert a jab against someone not in the discussion, not even on the same site for that matter. Fram (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

From an uninvolved perspective, I see you as a minor martyr in the Big-Brother-action by W?F. Unfortunately, once your username becomes a shortcut for the whole situation, you seem to lose control of it. You are no longer User:Fram, but are now WP:FRAM. Once you become part of the language, part of the culture, it's hard to censor its usage. I don't see it generally as someone poking you, but instead poking the situation; however, in this case they appear to be poking you, but you've become a "public figure" so I guess no one considered it personal. IDK, once a username becomes synonymous with something on WP, like ESjay of RicKK, maybe it's best to drop the moniker alltogether? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fifteen years on Wikipedia, and this is what it comes to. DFO

*For the amusement of my esteemed fellow editors, I will mention that it has come to my attention that I  – yes, Yours Truly – was mentioned in a similarly vague-wavish unflattering way ("serial harasser") in the course of a discussion on meta regarding this charming projected Universal Code of Conduct thingamajig which our WMF overlords have been cooking up [2]. Interestingly, the two complainants in that discussion are now indeffed or community banned (on multiple projects, in at least one case) for – wait for it! – outing and harassment! Huh. EEng 18:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Colour me shocked! Fram (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Who woulda thunk it!!! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Fat people, depending on where they land. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

        Not sure I quite get your drift. EEng 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

        • Every morning, I wake up and ask myself if I want to go on providing WMF with a living via the fruits of my labor. Every morning, I say, "I'm not doing this for them, but for the Community of volunteers that build and curate this encyclopedia." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

          Say fruits one more time and I'll have you drummed out for harassment. EEng 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

          You've been waiting for years to use that. —valereee (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Time wounds all heels. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Time flies like an arrow. (Fruit flies like a banana.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Spitballing - autoprotect bot

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

---

There were a few of us discussing this the other night on IRC, and I just saw there was a similar proposal at the meta wishlist, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Background: we got hit by a vandal the other night, and for whatever reason we ended up with over 110 edits and reverts in the span of an hour before the page was locked down (and yes, it was reported to RFPP, just not seen quickly enough). While we don't really want vandalism sitting about until an admin can appear (i.e. "I've already reverted them five times, I guess I'll wait for a sixth"), we also don't want to be clogging up edit histories with this level of back-and-forth. Hence, the thought for an autoprotection bot.

Since we have the "Revert" tag now, our thought was that if a page experienced more than 5-10 "Reverted"-tagged edits in a span of say 10-20 minutes, an adminbot automatically protects the page for an hour or two (whether semi- or fully-protected is up for debate, since the warring might be between two AC users). This would give us mere mortals a chance to investigate the issue and hand out any blocks or extended protections as necessary, without the messy result of potentially dozens of edits to clean up.

I know this is a bit more of a BOTREQ, but since the bot would be an AdminBot (and on that subject, I think it should be a dedicated bot for this specific task) it would need to be discussed here first anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As an idea I think this is great, but I would like to see some constraints on the admin bot before I would give my support. I would want to see that self reversions be excluded from the count, especially if this applies to more than just mainspace pages. Some questions:

• The reverted tag does not detect all reversions, as there is a limit as to how far the mediawiki software goes back to find out if a edit is a reversion. I think this limit is 10 previous revisions. It is possible, but unlikely due to the 10-20 minute timeline, that some reversions might go untagged if the edit rate is very high. Would the bot also check for reversions which were not detected by the software? If so, when would be the bot be prompted to do this on a page?
• What namespaces will this bot monitor? I would argue that there is a case for all namespaces to be monitored and protectable, but only if self reversions are not included.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As near as I can tell every vandal edit linked above was tagged, so I'm not too concerned about the system "missing" something; either way they were up to almost 20 reverts (and 40 edits!) in the first ten minutes, so if an edit or two gets skipped it's unlikely to matter. I don't see any reason why it couldn't monitor all namespaces, but obviously article space is the reader-facing space that would need it the most. Also, if someone is self-reverting that quickly (especially in the articles space), they should be CIR- or DE-blocked for being disruptive. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As a technical note (I'll probably raise this at BRFA, but in case I forget) maybe it should maybe check for undo/rollback/manual revert rather than reverted: N number of consecutive edits that are reverted once will have N many "Reverted" tags, even though it's just one revert. Alternatively, some logic to count a consecutive set of "reverted" tagged edits as a single revert, to ensure the reverted edits were recent and also check what kind of editor made them. Makes sense to only do it for IPs/non-autoconfirmed and to semi-prot I think, and then perhaps the bot reporting protections in the last day to WP:RFPP in a separate sub-section.

For the record, Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Automatically_report_highly_reverted_pages_for_page_protection is also slightly related. Worth adding that 249 usually catches these, and User:DatBot usually reports them to WP:AIV already, but some timezones have more admins active at AIV than others. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I support this, but I'm concerned that someone who knows what they're doing could game the bot into locking an article with a gross BLP violation visible. I'd like to make sure that if the bot is going to protect a page, it first reverts to the latest non-reverted revision. It might also be useful if the bot would list any pages it protects this way in a new subsection at RFPP so that there's a central place for admins to review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure if we've got a bot locking pages, it'll be posting it somewhere for review. I do also see the potential for gaming, and that's a pretty good solution. but if it's being reviewed faster due to a post from the bot, it will likely be fixed faster (WRONGVERSION and all that). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) struck and added to following PR's comment below 15:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

it first reverts to the latest non-reverted revision What's the best way to determine that, though? See [3] for example. The first set of reverted edits aren't actually tagged. One could assume the editor with rollback has reverted correctly and that revision can be trusted, but perhaps they haven't reverted far back enough, so someone else comes along and reverts further. How would the bot know which one to go with? Also a tricky assumption to just go for the earliest revision before that single editor edited, in case it's a case of multiple IPs/accounts causing issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

And we need to consider the following scenario: a user prepares, in advance, 3 different accounts. Account #1 inserts vandalism or BLP violation. Accounts #2 and #3 immediately edit war over a different part of the page. The bot kicks in. Yes, a simple CheckUser would expose this, but it probably wouldn't be done immediately. 147.161.14.35 (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We could have a second bot do an automatic checkuser. Then a third bot would come in behind to ... EEng 15:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin) but I'm concerned that someone who knows what they're doing could game the bot into locking an article with a gross BLP violation visible couldn't this be solved quite easily by just having the bot use either extened-confirmed or semi protection? Usually these kind of vandalism wars are done by either IP's or new users Asartea ^{Talk Contributions} 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(responding to all the points above) I interpreted the proposal as intended to address this problem: an article is generally stable with incremental edits when Editor A comes and makes a bad edit (in good faith, vandalism, BLP vio, just debatable, whatever) and is reverted by Editor B; instead of WP:BRD discussion Editor A hammers the undo button, Editor C reverts again, Editor A restores, etcetera. Yes, reverting to the most recent non-reverted revision is a weak solution, but it would work in this scenario (which in my experience is the vast majority of simple RFPP requests) and it's better than nothing in any more complicated instance anyway. There will always be very dedicated POV pushers and other disruptive editors, we will never program an automatic solution to that problem, and we should stop throwing out good proposals because they don't solve those very complicated issues. For this run-of-the-mill edit warring (which is a very widespread problem but tends to be low-impact) this is a good solution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, just a thought about that phenomenon: when your edit is reverted, you get a notification that reads "Your edit on [page] was reverted." When you click on the notification, you're taken to a diff of the reversion, which displays the undo button right at the top of the page; if you have rollback there's a second option for reverting, and if you use Twinkle there are three more revert buttons. But there is no "discuss" link anywhere on that page, which perhaps could take you to the talk page editing a new section titled "revert of revision [xxxxxxxxx]" or something. Maybe we should address that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is, I think, that it is quite hard for the bot to determine what revision to revert to. In your case, assuming everything is tagged and whatnot and only includes one account reverting it may be simple, but there are still various other cases that can happen (such as the cases above) and the bot needs to know either what to do in them, or at least know not to do anything (which is somewhat a corollary of the first). This distinction seems quite hard to technically make, and could very easily false positive in restoring a bad revision which needs to be cleaned up by hand anyway. So I think it's a lot of effort for what is probably going to fail much of the time anyway. imo it's better for such a bot to just protect, then let the reverter do a final cleanup edit by hand. Since there's reverting going on most likely there's human eyes on it anyway, so I don't think the bot should second guess them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See, I think you're overthinking it. It's obviously not going to be perfect, but if the trigger (as I understood the proposal) is for some number of revert-tagged revisions, the bot simply walks back from the current revision when it arrives to the next one that isn't flagged as a revert, restores that one, and protects the page. It doesn't need to review that revision or do any thinking at all to determine if it should ignore that revision and keep walking back. All that is is the revision prior to the chain of events that triggered the bot in the first place. If the bot protects that revision it's at least reasonably predictable that it will be a "safe" revision, whereas if the bot just protects on arrival the odds are close to 50/50 (and weighted in favour of the editor who clicks the revert button fastest) that the protected version will be harmful. If the bot is just going to blindly protect then I'm against the proposal; in that case I'd rather the bot just detect revert warring and report it for admin attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. See, for example, link I sent originally, [4], for some reason (I don't know why) the original edits Materialscientist reverted didn't get the "Reverted" tag (even though RB was used). If I understand you right, and it walks down the tree and picks up the first one which isn't "Reverted" at some point when this was going on, the first revision meeting that criteria would be "15:00, 1 December 2020‎ Metaveroo", which is exactly the revision which shouldn't be restored? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think everyone's overthinking it. Not many people watch RFPP, but loads of people (as evidenced by this discussion) watch AN, and there are dozens of folks on IRC that have custom notifications that trigger based on specific bots, users, and/or filters (within five minutes of the IRC crew finding out about Fishburne's page, everything was locked, blocked, and RD'd). I don't necessarily see the point of this bot to hide the vandalism itself, but to stop the vandalism. If the WRONGVERSION is on the page for five minutes until someone at AN/IRC/RC sees the edit and reverts, that's not the end of the world (even if it is something like one particular LTA who likes to call famous men paedophiles). there are OS-able edits that are on pages for hours (if not days) at a time, so this idea that a few extra minutes of vandalism is a tragedy seems somewhat silly (to me).

Now don't get me wrong, I have no issue with wanting to make a bot that can revert to the (hopefully) last-good version of the page (ideally pre-vandalism), but at the very least I would think that such a bot protecting the page to prevent similar 100-edit-vandlism-sprees from happening would be a good thing (and, as evidenced by this discussion, finding that last-good edit can be problematic). Primefac (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'd certainly back the listed articles being on RFPP - I wouldn't want it on a dedicated page, for example. I'm sure the normal process will bring it up, but if this is trialled, could we get that dropped on AN as well, so those of us not normally deep in the bot creation could see how it's going? Especially since people reviewing the bot's actions normally will be mostly standard RFPP admins, not bot-focused admins? In terms of the general concept - I'd say I'm very cautiously interested, but would need good answers for all of the issues and cases above. An edge case where it doesn't trigger is fine, but false positives could be really problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Interesting idea worth pursuing. I share the "gaming" concerns (protection-on-demand-via-bot) but I think countermeasures could be developed to reduce that concern. Maybe start with a trial period with the bot posting to RFPP instead of protecting. I'd be curious to see how often the bot was triggered and in what circumstances. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  From a "gaming" perspective, I don't think it would work too well. The bot would lock down the page, make one (or more) notification(s) to highly-trafficked pages (and likely trigger various notifications at places like IRC or even the OS queue at OTRS), and the vandalism reverted (I would guess) within 10 minutes. The protection would also likely be short-term, maybe an hour or two, and could be extended if necessary (for actual gaming or repeat offences) or allowed to lapse once the relevant parties are blocked. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Sign me up for the red team :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I'd also cautiously support - maybe throw together a proof-of-concept that just posts "here's a page where I detected edit-warring and here's what I would have done" to a userspace page so that we can start hashing out the detection and WRONGVERSION issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds potentially promising for semiprotection in response to vandalism or other obvious disruption. Maybe it only protects if X edits by new/unregistered users are reverted by at least 2 experienced editors in a certain period of time (to stop one person from gaming it). Applying full protection sounds a lot more dangerous. I can just see one autoconfirmed user removing a BLP violation, another autoconfirmed user reverting them, and the page ends up fully protected with the BLP violation on it. Getting the bot to revert to a "stable" revision wouldn't necessarily help with this. Hut 8.5 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• The Data, with > 5 reverts since midnight earlier today, for something to look at. Obviously would be tighter than 5 reverts in a day for a bot, but seems there's no ongoing edit wars of >5 reverts (with the exception of Liga MX Femenil, I guess). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Some onwiki list following the same logic at User:ProcBot/EW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• One thing to keep in mind is the principal that bots are just alt-accounts of their operator, so the admin running such a bot would need to be personally responsible for all the protections that they apply to ensure they are aligned with the protection policy. That being said, protection vs blocking is meant to be nuanced and a page should not be protected for example if 2 users are in a revert cycle with eachother - likely those users should be blocked. I'd like to hear from whatever admin would want to take ownership of this situation and hear what parameters they are thinking about using for their automated actions. Also keep in mind that bots should never be relied upon to make a future edit or action - so if this is the type of situation that would be better handled with the edit filter, that is worth exploring as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: are edit filters actually able to deal with this, beyond what 249 can do? Not sure if it's beans-y to say, but given that they can't see context or change tags, the method they deal with it is a bit easy to beat, plus they can only target the vandal. the bots can instead target the rollbacker, which seems better since the person reverting won't actively be trying to take steps to avoid being tagged, so they'll flag pretty much every case I'd think? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: right, EF can't "see tags" on an in-process edit, it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem but has been requested at phab:T206490. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm cautiously optimistic about the bot, but share xaosflux's concerns. It might be better to set up an edit filter instead. I remember seeing a "non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" tag which if defined by an edit filter would probably be a good place to start. Part of the problem too is that a number of admins who frequent RFPP (including me) haven't been very active these last few weeks so things are slower than usual. But if this gets off the ground, I'd like the bot to make reports at RFPP rather than a dedicated page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Re: a dedicated page: people keep saying that, but when I made the post I had no thoughts that it would post on a new board, and I don't think it should be on its own page. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Primefac: "why not both?" ala WP:AIV/TB2 on WP:AIV....? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, I can think of a half-dozen good places to post, which is why I've been somewhat confused as to why people seem to assume we'd be starting a new board for it. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Primefac: Sorry if this has already been thought of, but should there be a specified limit on the rate at which pages are locked? Like X-amount of pages per hour, removing the potential for the bot to be gamed into spamming whichever board it populates. The limit could be based on the number of requests received during busy times at RFPP, thereby only functioning as a safeguard rather than throttling the bot. Regards, Zindor (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, ignore that. I can see now that would create a way to completely stop the bot working. Perhaps it could be throttled over a certain rate. Zindor (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Those who can see private filters may want to look at filter 1102 (hist · log) ("Rapid disruption"). It's loosely related to what's being proposed here, and I plan on proposing that it be set to disallow once I finish fiddling with the parameters. I'd rather not say exactly how it works, per the concern raised by Ivanvector; someone might try to game it into locking in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Suffusion of Yellow, this is a work of art. – bradv🍁 18:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• A bot/edit filter for this is a good idea. I thought having a user trigger the protection manually (i.e. making some users able to protect the page for a limited period of time) might also be worth discussing, so I opened WP:VPIL#Unbundling for the millionth time. (I'm told there was a recent proposal along the same lines, but I haven't been able to find it; would be happy to close my discussion and bring it up in a while if that proposal was recent enough.) Enterprisey (talk!) 10:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Enterprisey, I like that idea a lot. But does it need a user group? It complements the policy that edit warring to revert actual vandalism is a 3RR exemption. Using it to trump in an edit war would be...well, edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a better solution be to appoint a few more admins? Aside from protection requests, actual new admins would also be able to block vandals, delete attack pages and much more. ϢereSpielChequers 17:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, a few more admins wouldn't likely have prevented the problem that opened this thread. Giving many editors a tool likely would have, if even one of the multiple editors whose time was wasted during that had had such a tool. —valereee (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Requesting RfC be re-opened

An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened.

• The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([5][6]) or MOS:WEASEL ([7]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.

• Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.

• Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([8][9]) but never got a response.

• • It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").

• • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([10][11]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([12][13]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).

Vote counts

Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.") Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below. Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..." Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE." Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS" @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous) Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE" Vice regent, said "Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views".

What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says, Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away. The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness.

VR _talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog." Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:

"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."

And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein ^talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re-open Re-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support work[-ing] together toward a proposal that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR _talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

• "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

  ”

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

• "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

• "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

• "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

• "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

• "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR _talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:

• SB's version misrepresenting the sources that say MEK is a cult (concern raised during RfC)
• SB's weasel wording equating scholarly sources to newspaper op-eds (raised during RfC[14]). Academic consensus is clear that MEK is a cult. Even SB admitted that no source dismisses the cult claim.

Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR _talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR _talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[15][16] by those who opposed SB version.VR _talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Editathon centered on scientist biographies 08.12.2020, 1PM-6PM UTC

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

---

Hello,

I am an employee of Wikimedia CH. Tomorrow, Tuesday December 8th, we are organizing with the EPFL a small editathon centered on scientist biographies, from 1PM to 6PM UTC. The work list is visible here on meta. We will first be teaching participants contribution and then move on to supporting them as they edit. We have 9 participants registered so far, 8 of which are complete beginners, so there should not be a huge influx of new articles, but there should still be a few. I wondered if anyone with admin rights is interested in checking their work and publishing the articles that respond to Wikipedia's criteria during the workshop. If so, please let me know.--Flor WMCH (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Standard offer unblock request from SithJarJar666

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

---

• SithJarJar666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SithJarJar666 is asking to be unblocked. SJJ666 was banned per WP:3X for sock puppetry and logged-out vandalism a while ago. Here's the request:

Greetings, fellow Wikipedians. For the last six months, I have been serving out my ban for sockpuppeting and deceiving the Wikipedia community. In that time, I came to believe that the ban was necessary to get me to change my ways. I understand now that socking is wrong, since it is basically lying to the Wikipedia communtiy and convincing them that I'm something I'm not.

Since then, I have disclosed all my sock accounts, made good edits on the Simple English Wikipedia, and avoided socking since June 2020, which the Checkusers can back me up on. (Full disclosure: I did sometimes log into those sock accounts up until mid-July, but that was solely for checking the watchlists and notifications. All those accounts have had their passwords scrambled, and I couldn't use them again if I wanted to.)

Therefore, I would like to ask that my ban be lifted through community consensus. I ask that the Wikipedia communtiy would welcome me back into their midst. I understand that I will likely never be trustworthy, and that every edit I make will be under extreme scrutiny, but I ask that I would at least be given another shot at the English Wikipedia.

I understand that what I did was wrong. I understand that I initially got block for vandalism, and then I tried to evade my block by socking again... and again... and again. If I am allowed back on enwiki, I will continue the antivandalsim and copyediting work that I did on Simple Wikipedia.

I will never sock again (I would even be willing to be placed on a one-account policy for the next six months, and even after that I would only have a disclosed alt account for test purposes), and I understand that this is my final chance. If I mess up again, it's over for me. Even with these conditions, though, I humbly ask for an unban.

Regards, --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 21:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence of any recent sock puppetry. For what it's worth, I think the unblock request is genuine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support with, of course, a restriction to one account going forward. A little over 1000 edits on simple.wiki without significant problems, and apparently no recent socking. SithJarJar may also want to continue helping out the Simple Wikipedia project, even if unblocked here. --Yamla (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- user seems to be acting in good faith; a vandal who created nonsense pages for 1 April, and has been socking as a way to try to contribute after being blocked. To be honest, it seems the initial extended block after 1 April was a bit of a mistake... user creates an unblock request to ask that the block be shortened; user is asked if they do not want to be unblocked, replies "Yes, because I just like to do minor edits", but then a few messages later, asks if there is an administrator who can unblock or reduce their block. If they had simply requested an unblock, this might have been completely avoided in the first place! sam1370 (talk · contribs) 23:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Yamla. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  The basis for the standard offer is that people can change. And one of the recommendations for seeking the standard offer is Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Appellant has shown that they can edit constructively and that there is little likelihood of the problem behaviors returning. It is not logical to believe that a user would make the effort to prove themselves on Simple Wikipedia in some mad scheme to vandalize the English Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Yamla. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• So, someone chose the username "SithJarJar666" (this is StarWars-speak for "attention, I am going to fuck around on your wiki"), fucked around on our wiki, made over 150 edits to their talk page trying to get unblocked, socked, and... we want to welcome them back? VxFC should just copy this unblock request, I'm sure we'll welcome them back too. We sure do have weird priorities. If they're doing so great on Simple, why can't they stay on Simple? Just a warning that, if you're unblocked, do not even come close to fucking around again, even once, or I'll reblock in a heartbeat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Careful, Floquenbeam, you're coming awfully close to harsh reality there. Such reasonable, logical, and insightful thinking could well be considered a violation of AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: They've addressed all that. Non punitive, and they should be able to contribute constructively moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Does not punitive apply to the community? Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I must have missed the part of WP:ADMIN, WP:UNBLOCK, or WP:SO that suggests threatening users. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You seem to have missed understanding the meaning of the word "threaten", actually. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support — per of course we give people second chances, WP:UBCHEAP, and the reason I don't want this editor to stay at Simple Wiki (not that I want to take them away from there) is because I'd like them to come make articles like this here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not to get dragged too far down the rabbit hole when this seems to be a done deal, but... "come make articles like this here"?? They just copy pasted that article from our article here. (Interestingly, the person who actually "made" that article has been blocked too.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

    They did a lot more than "just copy pasted". You might want to strike that allegation. Compare simplewiki July 21 version with enwiki version a/o July 21. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Yamla. Chetsford (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support allow me to talk from personal experience with this user over on simple wiki, where I am a regular editor. This user created a large number of high quality articles, was polite, and an all-round good editor. I can confidently say that the user has matured since their previous behaviour here and can be trusted to be unblocked. I disagree with some above comments that seem to assume bad faith and suggest that a vandal cannot be trusted to contribute again; people grow up and change and I don’t think any suggestions that the user will continue their previous behaviour appears valid, considering the contributions elsewhere since. Blocks are not punitive and certain users should be reminded of that. --IWI (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  "Blocks are not punitive" does not address anything I've said. The purpose of the block is to prevent more fucking around on this project. It appears there's a consensus that they can be trusted now, so most people (not me) think it isn't needed as a preventative measure. Fine, consensus is consensus. But lazily mischaracterizing people who do think it is still needed as a preventative measure as supporting a punitive block is wrong. Par for the course at AN/ANI, but wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• To answer Floquenbeam's question ~ ... we want to welcome them back?, why, yes, we do. As a community we have determined that we tend to believe people when they tell us something, particularly when the evidence supports it; i support unblock; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support People can mature and improve their behavior. This seems to be such a case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich. I would prefer an unconditional unblock, and I'm weakly opposed to Yamla's proposed account restriction since we can't meaningfully enforce it and their lack of socking makes me willing to WP:AGF that socking is behind us. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support. Although I only really interacted with SithJarJar666 on their sock account, Total Eclipse 2017, they appear, as I've gleaned from this months-old thread on my talk page, to be genuinely keen in improving the encyclopedia. The GOCE did not have a problem with Total Eclipse 2017, and some of us were astonished that they were a sock puppet when that account got blocked. If there are concerns about relapsing into unwanted behaviour, perhaps mentorship would be a possible deterrent? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 03:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Internal Error message at Draft:Richard L. Greene

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T269131

At Draft:Richard L. Greene I was revdel-ing some copyvio content. The page now displays the following error message:

[X9IyiApAICoAAJ7-xowAAABP] 2020-12-10 14:36:56: Fatal exception of type "TypeError"

It is still possible to see the source code, but saving a dummy edit doesn't resolve anything. I've not encountered this before, and am unsure how to proceed. Help!!!! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Filed on phab as phab:T269857 Majavah (talk!) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be an issue with the page curation toolbar (which explains why some people below can't reproduce) that only occurs when the author of the first revision of a page has been revdel'd. This should be fixed in MediaWiki 1.36.0-wmf.21 which should be deployed later today if everything goes according to plan. Majavah (talk!) 15:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm seeing a normal-looking page when I click that draft link. ValarianB (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Same. I'm not seeing any error messages and I'm able to access it just fine Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 15:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Majavah: Thank you. I replied before seeing your response above, and Primefac's below. I was wondering if it was just a Chrome issue. The page displays ok in Firefox, Internet Explorer, Edge, Opera and in Chrome's incognito mode. (I did purge my cache in a normal and Chrome browser window, which made no difference to the error message being displayed in any new Tab.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a Chrome issue, shows up for me on FF. I agree it's likely a page curation issue, since I can see diffs etc (which doesn't involve loading the 'bar). Primefac (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to note I see the issue. I use FF too. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Firefox here and it shows the error message for me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request for MindSlayer13

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

---

• MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• UTRS appeal #37905
• Related ANI thread.

MindSlayer13 was blocked most recently on 2020-10-28 By @Johnuniq: for disruption, unsourced edits, and non responsiveness. They made a number of uninsightful unblock requests, and @Voice of Clam: removed talk page access. They have requested unblocking at UTRS.

Starting with this post-

Yes with due respect I know what I have been blocked for. I have neen blocked disruptive editing, not adding sources & failing to respond to other wiki users. I can assure you I will be not doing the things I have done before. Will try to make wiki a better place. I know as users we have responsibilities which I have failed to sometimes. Everyone deserves a chance and I assure I will not be repeating the mistakes. Thanks

I asked for greater detail and user responded thusly-

It was unconstructive as I edited without mentioning source, failed to respond to users when they asked to clarify, in the future I when editing articles I would provide source wherever needed, & have a healthy discussion with the other users what to edit & what not.

As the block was imposed in response to the ANI discussion, I requested a response to that thread. User replied,

So I couldn't respond to those users because I was not active for some reasons, and to be honest I open the notifications very little, that's the reason I was unresponsive, and the thing they were telling about my name is a coincidence, The earlier name was a silly spelling mistake of my real name, later on instead of again putting my real name with correct spelling, I changed the username completely. They mistook it thinking I was changing my identity. Yes I agree I didn't give sources, the edit in Surchandra Singh, and moving Scott Neville to AFC player were actually true and genuine, the other user thought it to be disruptive cause I didn't put any source. The edit I did at Mohun Bagan page, I heard it from various websites so I did it which I shouldn't have as there was already a discussion going on the talk page. I am so sorry for the mistake.

Presented for your consideration. User does not have talk page access but is prepared to respond via UTRS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've restored talk page access to allow them to make another unblock request on their talk page. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to unblock, but VoC had expressed a preference for bringing it here. Certainly this unblock request is better than the prior unblock requests. I believe appellant has learned from this and will edit productively moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I may be mistaken but I thought the rule was that if someone was blocked after a community discussion, they could only be unblocked by another discussion. I may be wrong though, and I don't have time at present to look it up so feel free to overrule me. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  This is where ANI can be confusing. Johnuniq blocked as an admin action, not as the result of a consensus building process, though it was headed that way. It was not closed as "block indefinitely. However, under the circumstances, it would be best to seek a consensus to unblock. What confuses me is saying user can post an unblock request on their talk page with this thread open. I'd prefer community input as to unblocking anyway. Reduces the risk of me unblocking in a fit of overexuberance. And having parallel unblock discussions is often nightmarish. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• As Deepfriedokra notes above, my block was a simple admin action. The reason an unblock has not yet occurred is that the appeals have not given confidence to the reviewing administrators. It's a bit disappointing that my question at User talk:MindSlayer13#Sources has still not been answered but I have to say that edits like that are standard in fandom topics including sports. I have no objection to an unblock provided MindSlayer13 engages with other editors in the future. English is probably a problem but all that is required is that disputed edits are not repeated without first gaining consensus after discussion on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• This user has been actively socking throughout their unblock request, using both an account User:Hellowiki137 and via logged-out editing. ST47 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  1)Thanks, @ST47:. Good to know. 2) (from the bottom of my heart, and in my Samuel L. Jackson voice--) W T F ? . I guess I can just go ahead and close this and decline the UTRS. (sotto voce mumblings). 3) You gotta be kiddin; me. It's enough to amke me lose my faith in humanity. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Report on Mirrored7

• Mirrored7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Check Mirrored7's recent contributions. They went on a serial rampage on a bunch of Taylor Swift articles in order to WP:POINT. Their recent edit to the lead of Sweetener (album) was rightly reverted by two other editors (Lydïa (talk · contribs) and Doggy54321 (talk · contribs)), because it was unsourced. So Mirrored7 decided they'd go make disruptive edits on Taylor Swift (to whom they have had shown strong dislike for a reason I don't know) articles with an edit summary of "no sources" whereas in fact they're all perfectly & strongly sourced in the "Music & Lyrics" sections of each of those articles. First and foremost, Mirrored7 didn't cite any source when they added what they added, and that's the fundamental reason why it was removed. Admins, I request you to please look into this. It's tiring honestly. It's impossible to create a discussion with this user because they remove any kind of talk from their user page. They don't wanna learn. They don't seem to understand that you need to source something before you add it to Wikipedia. BawinV (talk)

Well, first of all it's sourced, sections below. I overreacted a bit, because it seems that there's a bias toward Taylor Swift from this editor and on this site in general. Also, my edits are sourced as needed. I thought by going through the article of album, it would be self-explanatory for certain users, but I guess not. I'm always open for discussion, but how it seems, you are not ready for it. That's also why you need to go to a admin. And can I remember about you distruptive edits on the Ariana Grande you did months ago? Stop trying to make yourself better than I am, because you are clearly NOT. Mirrored7 (talk)

I'm looking into it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples that BawinV gave are just the tip of the iceberg. This user also has an issue with WP:NPOV and WP:EW. For edit warring, they have reverted three times in 24h and then ignored the article (see history of Sweetener (album) from today) multiple times on multiple articles. They have also been blocked for edit warring before. For NPOV, they show a bias towards Ariana Grande, and a hatred towards Taylor Swift. See this edit I made to User talk:Mirrored7 for diffs/examples of bias towards Grande/hatred towards Swift. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@BawinV and Doggy54321: Have there been further problems that you've noticed? I've checked up on Mirrored's recent contributions and nothing since this report strikes me as a problem, but wanted to check with you since you both know the topic area better than I do. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: thanks for checking in! No, there haven’t been any problems since this report. I’m assuming in good faith that this user is trying to change for the better. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: I think you should take another look at the message Doggy54321 left on your talk page a few weeks ago. It's genuinely good advice. It's important that we have editors who have multiple points of view, and your perspective on Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande would be valuable for the encyclopedia. However you clearly are being disruptive and if you do not quickly fix your approach I will block you indefinitely. For the sake of clarity, you need to (1) stop edit warring--just pretend the undo button doesn't exist; (2) discuss things calmly on article talk pages--if you need to give yourself a few hours to cool down, do so, there's no rush (3) don't add material to articles if you cannot provide a reliable source--especially avoid primary sources like song lyrics and certainly do not insert your own analysis. Right now, this is friendly advice because I genuinely believe you have a valuable perspective, but if you continue to disrupt the encyclopedia by personalizing disputes you will be blocked. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Mirrored7 has further exercised disruptive editing on Taylor Swift-related articles, most recently 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and Red (Taylor Swift album). As these two articles are on my watchlist, I doubt if this user also exercises disruptive editing on other articles beyond my scope of interest. The issue is, as I observe, that although this user has received various warnings (see this user's talk page history), it seems that they are not open-minded enough to realize their disruptive behaviors, even went so far as to remove others' well-intended, useful advice, HĐ (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2022

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

---

There appears to be some sort of edit warring regarding whether Microsoft Office 2022 should exist or not between a couple of inexperienced users. I've procedurally closed an RfD and reverted to the last version as an article rather than half an infobox and some categories, but it would be useful if someone who is awake could keep an eye on it. If anyone thinks it should be discussed for deletion then nominate it as an article at AfD rather than as a redirect at RfD (per WP:BLAR). Thryduulf (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I don't know why you restored that as an article. It's just a duplicate of Microsoft Office 2019. Enjoyer of World^(bother...) 03:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a mess of no effort. IAR deleted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Images deletition request

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

---

Can anyone delete these two files as they are clearly copyright violations:

• File:HUMAYUN SAEED.png it was first published here on 20 August 2018 before upload:https://mobile.twitter.com/aryfilmsary/status/1031792388786802688?
• File:FAHAD MUSTAFA.png it was first published on 21 August 2018 here before upload:https://mobile.twitter.com/showbizandnewz/status/1031959478231552004. Thank You192.142.150.23 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged these files with the appropriate speedy deletion tag. Iffy★Chat -- 10:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done both deleted. Hut 8.5 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

My name change

Just to be clear, I am NOT changing my name to avoid scrutiny after being unblocked; I’m just changing it because I like the new one better. Also, I don’t want to have a username that is known as “StarWars-speak for ‘attention, I am going to f*** around on your wiki’”... also, I am a fan of The Matrix, that’s why I chose that name. --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 19:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Posting this here because I didn’t know where else to put it, I just wanted to say it publicly... --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Renamer note: Sorry,  Not doneThe chosen username is too similar to an existing username or it used to be username of someone else that got renamed: Neo Is The One. Please choose again. You can ping me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Requests for page protection backlog

FWIW, I don't recall having ever seen WP:RfPP this backlogged, with over 40 entries in the queue. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe we had sixty a couple of weeks ago, but indeed forty requires immediate action (in the meanwhile, reduced to twenty).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

65 right now--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification of proposed community ban against Sievert 81

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposed community ban of the user Sievert 81. Please post your thoughts on the proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community ban of Sievert 81. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Fifteen Years An Admin

Fifteen years of adminship, and all I got was this lousy edit. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! jp×g 01:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congrats and thanks for your work BD2412 Please double your salary immediately :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Double it? I'm going to quintuple it! BD2412 T 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't be greedy. That's grossly excessive, and never mind that you can't set your own salary (this is Wikipedia, not the U.S. Congress). Granting a more reasonable 50% increase, and adjusting for 33% U.S. inflation (since the servers are in the U.S.), I think a fair calculation would be 0 x 1.33 x 1.5 = 0, with further salary review every five years. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just for us newcomers, (2012 what a greenie) and for laughs, what were the admin requirements back in the day? Simon Adler (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A heartbeat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Just a joke, congratulations! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

LOL! I echo BMK's congrats. It looks like you had a record number of supports at the time. The figure still looks healthy in 2020. Respect that you still have the RfA on your userpage. I wonder how many of those original voters are still with us? Simon Adler (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thought this was about a possible film sequel. Congrats! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Film sequel? I assumed it was going to be Out of RfAica. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not much different from either of those. BD2412 T 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't lie, BD2412--I bet you got tons of abuse since then also. WP:HR considers that as fringe and knocks off 5% of your pay accordingly. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You have no idea how many keyboards and mice I have gone through in that time. BD2412 T 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations. And hey look you got an congratulation! Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oh you kids. :) Anyway, congrats from one of your original supporters (no. 29, I see). With your fifteen-year anniversary you are now up to one day of vacation per year and relaxed telecommuting rules. Hey, at least we don't have to Zoom into cabal meetings yet. Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• I've got you beat by a couple of months. I'm still waiting for somebody to give me my key to the men's room. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• That's a long time to hold it in! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Got you beat" is a relative term. I have the men's room key. I swiped one from Jimbo at Wikimania. BD2412 T 20:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Thanks RoySmith as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• 2020 was my 15th year, as well! I want cake! El_C 09:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  El C, here you go. And congratulations on your 15th anniversary! Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 10:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Targetted off-wiki brigading

Saw a large campaign on reddit to brigade and manipulate pages/voting in the India-Pakistan article space (under WP:ARBIPA sanctions) by Pakistani POVPUSHers (1, 2). They are looking to target articles by first creating legitimate appearing/"benign" accounts then getting to their real work, and have created private subreddits (1 (CTR=Correct The Record), 2) to discuss which specific articles to target. Payments/rewards such as PS5s and computer devices are being offered as well for successful brigading or targeting of articles. Should be on the lookout for such accounts (old/new) and edits in the coming days and months. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, Valereee, Shirt58, NinjaRobotPirate and Primefac please see above. 2402:3A80:112B:1E91:C1DC:8842:F691:28E7 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, L235 and Deepfriedokra 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "removeddit" works (presumably it scrapes the vote count/etc at the time of a link's removal from Reddit) -- that link shows the submission as having a score of 1 (on Reddit one point is automatically given to a submission by the person who posts it) -- that is to say, if I'm interpreting this correctly, it was deleted from the subreddit without a single person having upvoted it. However, the second link has about 250 upvotes, which may be of more concern (plus it links to this Poast, which seeks to organize people with the opposite POV and has ~150 upvotes). These are probably the ones we should be keeping an eye on. jp×g 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:PERM/PCR

Please have a look to the backlog of requests at WP:PERM/PCR. Thanks 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, AmandaNP, Swarm, QEDK, and ToBeFree: as they have handled requests there earlier. 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've responded to a few of them. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All of them were dealt with. 😢 --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Restore Varidesk during deletion review

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

---

It may be prudent to restore Varidesk during its deletion review. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I did that, but having looked at it I've deleted it again, because it looks far too close to a copyvio to me. Quite apart from things like "Vari manufactures 300 products that assemble within minutes and are perfectly suited for flexible workspaces.", "A lower price point makes this Electric Standing Desk a great option for work-from-home" and "The VariDesk Pro Plus™ desktop converter comes fully assembled out of the box", an amount of the text appears to have been paraphrased from the company's own website (and Amazon). Incidentally, there was a G11 speedy-deletion tag applied before it was deleted. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Also, for the record - there is no requirement that a speedy deletion tag be applied before an admin speedies a page - the admin may speedy on their own initiative without the tag. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

TPA

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

---

remove tpa from User talk:BAN BREXIT --TheImaCow (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done by User:GeneralNotability, and I've semi'd it as well in case they are considering coming back under another guise. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

The most important correction

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

---

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

---

Mirza qadiyani is not a calipha of islam. You may have to research more about this topic.almost muslim countries are recognize qadiyani as a non-muslim so you must be change it. Thank you for read my msg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.143.107 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I know that this is closed, but just for general awareness - there appears to be some sort of off-wiki campaign regarding the topic of the Caliphate and whether or not this person was a genuine Caliph. There were a number of disruptive edits at RfPP, this comment here, and a veritable flood of tickets at OTRS (I haven't checked the articles in question, but I'm sure they've got their share of problems too). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Might be time to up the protection to ECP soon, since AC-accounts are now appearing on the relevant page too, and I assume this is only going to get worse for the time being. Blablubbs|talk 20:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Some extra eyes on related pages, i.e. everyone listed here and Caliphate, might also be useful. Blablubbs|talk 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is on google – they display his name when people search for "who is the present caliph of islam". Currently getting attention on Twitter and video platforms. Blablubbs|talk 20:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Stupid wrong answers on Google searches seem more common now? XKCD Twitter had some the other week. As noted, that really isn't Wikipedia's problem. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. The Amadiyya are only about 1% of Muslims and are widely seen as heretical. Google then displays the Wikipedia article, leading true believers to conclude that Wikipedia is responsible for the error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

See Qadiani for some insight into the anger this stirs up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information being displayed

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

---

If you search on wikipedia about the present caliph of Islam, it give the answer Mirza Masroor , which is totally false. It will be highly appreciated if correct research is done before adding in information, do your research and correct it ASAP. Thank You so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.209.154 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

User:Sundayclose: bullying and threats of harassment: request for remedy

User:Sundayclose has been bullying me and has now threatened to harass me on one specific article (Immaculate conception). This is not an isolated incident for this user but is indicative of a general approach to other users on Wikipedia - see, e.g., here and here.

This began at the article Immaculate Conception when objected to the phrase "France saw" (as in saw an increase in the popularity of this idea), on the grounds that countries cannot see; I reverted, as the phrase seemed to me to reflect common usage. This was followed by an edit war, and I admit to being at fault in allowing myself to be drawn into this. The real problem is not this trivial matter, but the behavioural issue: to quote another editor who complained about a very similar incident, Sundayclose has "a habit of undoing what [they] [dis?]like and carpet bombing the offending user's talk page with a warning." This has been exactly my experience, culminating in a threat of future harassment on the article Immaculate Conception.

I will be very happy if I never come across this user again. In order to make this happen, I would like an interaction ban on both of us (neither to edit any page edited by the other), including a joint ban from editing Immaculate Conception.Achar Sva (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed your broken link. --JBL (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I really hoped it wouldn't come to this, but Sundayclose has left multiple users – including me – no choice here. All one needs to do is casually scan the last couple of months of his contributions page to see a user with massive WP:OWN problems. The pattern is immediately evident: he comes across an edit he doesn't agree with, immediately reverts and posts a warning to that user's talk page regardless of whether a warning is appropriate or not. Any further interaction then descends to an argument of "it's your responsibility to get consensus, per BDR"—regardless of which side of the BRD cycle he's on. I've had one interaction with the guy, but got a genuine stink of BRD misuse/filibustering. With his talk page on my watchlist for the past week, I've seen this user come into conflict with no less than six other editors, most of which were removed without response. And his latest interaction with an IP is a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

It's clear he is deliberately misinterpreting the content of several policies – pretty much everything linked in WP:5P4 – to suit his own needs as the situation dictates. If successful, this ANI may result in his first block, but I believe the behavioural issues here deserve a fairly lengthy block. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE, is argumentative, hostile and combative for no damn reason, and genuinely needs some time to reflect on how he interacts with other users. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to offer my two cents to the discussion. Based on the evidence provided by Homeostasis07, I can agree that some of those behavioral problems may need to be looked at. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've not followed the links to the interaction or behaviour at the heart of this thread, but I just want to weigh in on Sundayclose, generally. From my experience with them, going back several years, I have to disagree that their contribution can be reduced to WP:NOTHERE. Working on 1960s music articles as I do, I've seen Sdc tirelessly undoing dozens of nuisance edits – say, to Personnel sections at Beatles song articles, which are magnets for users either obsessively changing credits to what they personally hear/think or are otherwise out to be disruptive. Sdc's an absolute godsend on that front, as far as I'm concerned. I've seen them occasionally be a little to quick to revert, yes, but it's easily solved. I'm not out to negate the subject of this complaint (which, as I say, I haven't even looked into) or others' experience (which sounds very different from mine, obviously). But to imply that Sdc offers nothing but negative input – no way, that's absolutely not true. JG66 (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Achar Sva, instructions for creating a diff are at Help:Diff and there's a very handy script you can install at User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink.js that makes it dead easy, just click to copy. —valereee (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :) Achar Sva (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: Without having looked into the complaint, I would like to say that I've interacted with Sundayclose before and have found them to be an excellent contributor. The claim by Homeostasis07 that Sundayclose is WP:NOTHERE—meaning Sundayclose is only here to disrupt the project or make unhelpful edits—is obviously wrong and makes it hard for me to take anything else Homeostasis07 says seriously. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Me getting banned

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

---

Is there any way I can be unbanned from editing Articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelife68 68 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Responded on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Admin help needed with taxonomy template

Please follow the following link and save the result as is:

this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animal lover 666 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Animal lover 666, I'm not sure why I want to save a page as Template:Taxonomy/Edrioasteroidea/?/?/?. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Questionable assignment (two levels). Here we need 3 levels. Animal lover 666 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC being removed

Gonna need some help. An SPA is deleting an RfC I started. [17] [18] [19]. starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I manually reverted to reinstate the above section, after it was blanked by Bezeq2. This appears to be related to the below section, but as the named party, Bezeq2 should clearly not be removing this comment. Blablubbs|talk 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs - [20] - user is replacing my comments with impunity. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This user wants WP community to discuss textbook BLP-Violations with deleted sources that were unpublished by publishers that have no live secondary sources. The false information was already discuss here and edits would be considered are dead links that were removed and unpublished with no live secondary source; also see WP:V, WP:NPF, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BALASP, WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the RFC. There is no copyright violation. That the links that the story (in 2013) are no longer working doesn't mean that the news source redated them, and we do not require "live" secondary links for this type of information; the use of something like archive.org for the original links is 100% in line for sourcing. Further, on talk pages to discuss BLP matters, this type of situation is clearly allowed, per WP:BLPTALK. The BLP/N discussion you cite addresses the problem with using elements like court documents and the like to source those crimes, but these are reliable news sources and that's a wholly different matter. --Masem (t) 15:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have partially-blocked Bezeq2 from the talk page in question for a couple of days for edit-warring over the RfC. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The sources mentioned by Bezeq2 all have archived versions. News reporting websites frequently allow stories to go stale, and archived versions of the same story are just as acceptable as one that is "live". WP:DEADLINK deals with how to resolve linkrot. Bezeq2's rationale for blanking that is nonsense and blanking an RfC and noticeboard report is deliberately abusive. ♟♙ (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the rules for copyrighted content

How much of a article is considered "copying copyrighted content"? Thanks. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) See WP:COPYWITHIN. All article content is copyrighted and proper attribution information needs to be maintained when content is copied within Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Better to ask "is there a word limit." Bezeq2 (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to copying from other websites, you shouldn't copy anything at all, with certain exceptions. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Please see our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as an article being a copyright issue (i.e. something that would qualify for WP:G12), I always view that as a question of "would there be something left after I removed the violation?" If the answer is "less than a few sentences" then it should be G12'd, but if you can keep the lead intact and a paragraph of two, it should be trimmed and a {{revdel}} requested. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all I thought I was correct and you have confirmed. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For context, it is worth noting that it appears the OP of this post had an AN thread filed against them presumably relating to the same matter as this. They removed that without summary and then posted this 2 minutes later. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Blablubbs has restored that thread above, and starship.paint posted it again below, all at the same timestamp as me typing this. Interesting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That was not intentional and I havent knowledge of anything filed against me. I would not do knowingly. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

[21] ^ ?! starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to buy that the initial removal at AN was an edit conflict, as no content was added in the same edit (that was added in a separate edit) - marked minor too, interestingly. And the removal on a particular admin's talk (User talk:Deepfriedokra), some admin starship chose at random from active admins, whilst it could be an edit conflict if you started writing before one posted, it's hard to buy that you both chose the same admin to deal with your dispute. Even AGF this seems like an attempt to evade scrutiny. Not necessarily saying that your removal is right or wrong - I haven't really looked into it - but removing attempts to seek admin review is obviously problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, also note that a RFPP for this talk page has been filed by Bezeq2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have some trouble believing that, since blanking others' comments seems to be something that you do with some regularity. Interested parties will also want to make note of the fact that both Bezeq2 and the preceeding account, Bezeq1, are single-purpose accounts and of this recent story on Wikipediocracy. Blablubbs|talk 14:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Question: , one SPI investigation closed & archived, one RFPP declined & redirected here, two threads on User talk:Deepfriedokra redirected here - are there any more WP:MULTI variations of this dispute? Cabayi (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• {{Checkuser needed}} can we get a check here? This does not seem like a new editor, and at least some of this is disruptive and evading scrutiny. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If my edits are not wanted that is fine. But this is my only account. I was Bezeq1. But I lost my password. That is why I create Bezeq2. I have said this. Also I read the policy and put in my edits. Only reason I am interested in topic is because I read the book. Bezeq2 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RTFM may well apply. Requesting a check doesn't mean all of your edits are unwanted, but many of the principles of WP:SOCK have nothing to do with all (or even any) edits being disruptive in and of themselves (eg WP:SCRUTINY). Many of the subtleties of your behaviour do not add up, but apologies if I'm mistaken. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Inconclusive due to extensive use of proxies. ST47 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't editing through proxies generally disallowed on Wikipedia without special permission? ♟♙ (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not technically; open proxies are allowed until blocked. See Wikipedia:Open proxies. A possibly relevant passage, though: When a Checkuser detects that an account has been using open proxies, this information may be considered when evaluating suspicions of sock puppetry or other editing abuses. If there is an appearance that an account has been using open proxies to circumvent policy, the account may be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability - a new user, Red Maple Leaves, has removed the disputed content [22]. Wonder how they found the page. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a new user. Nice to meet you. I found the page by browsing, either by "random article" or where feedback was asked for. I reverted the content until a discussion has time to take place. It has been less than 24 hours. While there is no limit or minimum for these as I recently read, perhaps it may be a good idea for other viewpoints to be heard. I plan to vote for this content in the morning as I am about to head off to sleep. But I want to evaluate the material in full. I am new so forgive any errors or lack of speed. Thank you for getting in touch. :) Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Try harder next time. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Try harder staying awake? Not sure what you mean. Have a good night. Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Red Maple Leaves. I'm wide awake and am currently having my second cup of coffee for the day. I too have some concerns here. It seems like an odd coincidence that your account, which was created 84 minutes after GeneralNotability blocked three obvious sockpuppets, randomly found its way to a highly controversial article – either because the random page button miraculously presented you with that one, instead of one of our 6+ million other ones, or because you picked it out of a list of 16 open RfCs, which is something new users generally don't do. It also strikes me as odd that you chose to make your first substantial edits on said article after doing a bunch of gnoming tasks, with your second edit to the article being the partial reinstatement of a previous sock edit. I just cannot help but hear the characteristic noise of a certain avian species. Blablubbs|talk 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Maple Leaves is now blocked; three guesses why and the first two don't count. Article semi'd for a month. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Arrrrgh!

{Cough} Ahem, there's a small backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, if any would like to look. I would, but my stomach has made other plans. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request by The Image Editor

The Image Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Image Editor was blocked indefinitely on November 16 for persistent disruptive editing. The reason for their block was repeated edit warring over lead images, including replacing some with copyrighted files that they'd uploaded to Commons with incorrect/insufficient licensing, attribution, and/or source information. Most of their edit history has consisted of changing lead images. The block was imposed by Oshwah as the result of a unanimous consensus reached in this discussion I started at WP:ANI. The consensus was clear for some sort of sanction, though nothing specific was decided upon. The Image Editor is now requesting that their block be lifted, and has acknowledged the reasons for their block. I believe that they have served their time and are genuinely interested in contributing constructively, so I am endorsing their request and starting this discussion on their behalf. I do so without prejudice towards a topic ban on changing lead images. Please discuss The Image Editor's request with them at User talk:The Image Editor#WP:AN discussion of unblock request. Pinging participants in ANI discussion: Sundayclose, GoodDay, HeartGlow30797, Sphilbrick, Johnbod, Laser brain, Beyond My Ken. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• If he's promised to behave, then by all means 'unblock'. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Tartan357, I'm not opposed. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• I've thought about it, and I guess I have no opinion about it one way or the other, as long as The Image Editor understands that if they're unblocked, and they return to their previous behavior, the indef that is likely to follow will be a lot more difficult to have lifted -- so walking the straight-and-narrow path is their best choice if they want to continue editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin control over fota

What's is violating the apache attribution creative commons liscense.. Or mdm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5000:B64:5CF9:7141:ED6A:4C24 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what is being said. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks for Doppelgänger accounts

Because my username is pretty easy to impersonate, I've created a bunch of Doppelgänger accounts to prevent that; since they're not supposed to ever edit, could an admin please block:

• BIablubbs (BIABLUBBS)
• BlabIubbs (BLABIUBBS)
• BIabIubbs (BIABIUBBS)
• Blabblubs
• BIabbIubs (BIABBIUBS)
• BIabblubs (BIABBLUBS)
• Blabbiubs (messed up the capitalisation here, but the account creation form prevents registration of the username with a capital I anyway)

Please turn off autoblock so I don't have to go on an involuntary wikibreak. Thanks in advance and best, Blablubbs|talk 13:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been telling Blablubbs for ages that with all of their RedWarn usage, statistically they'd end up blocked sooner or later...and now I've blocked them seven times!) GeneralNotability (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GeneralNotability. I know you're eagerly awaiting the day that WP:Sockpuppet Investigations/Blablubbs finally turns into a bluelink, but you ought to give me credit where it's due: At least I tagged these myself. Blablubbs|talk 14:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think a username change might have been quicker. ;) —valereee (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)