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	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	43	43
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	19	40	59
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 8839 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case User talk:42.119.93.195 2024-11-12 10:32 2024-12-12 10:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:182.229.34.80 2024-11-12 09:47 2024-12-12 09:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:219.240.5.188 2024-11-12 09:32 2024-12-12 09:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu 2024-11-12 08:33 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Doug Weller: Community sanctions enforcement Protection Helper Bot Trick Weekes 2024-11-11 19:52 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Battle of Wadi Saluki 2024-11-11 11:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:91.210.238.104 2024-11-11 09:40 2024-12-11 09:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Thori Si Wafa 2024-11-11 07:13 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Battle of Sumy 2024-11-11 06:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Draft:Khashayar Farzam 2024-11-11 06:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Battle of Makariv 2024-11-11 06:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Chopra (surname) 2024-11-11 06:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 2024 drone attack on Benjamin Netanyahu's residence 2024-11-11 00:58 indefinite edit,move Dr vulpes Template:Infobox galaxy 2024-11-10 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice 2024-11-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:103.71.101.206 2024-11-10 16:46 2024-12-10 16:46 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Ireland–Zambia relations 2024-11-10 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Zambia relations (3rd nomination) OwenX Jennette McCurdy 2024-11-10 00:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop 2024-11-09 22:42 indefinite edit,move Prevent further disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Ọranyan 2024-11-09 21:19 2024-11-23 21:19 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Ada and Abere 2024-11-09 20:43 2024-12-09 20:43 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Political positions of JD Vance 2024-11-09 20:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP AP Will log at AEL Ad Orientem Module:Arrowverse redirect category handler 2024-11-09 18:21 indefinite edit Pppery User talk:Qcne 2024-11-09 16:52 2024-11-16 16:52 edit,move Persistent vandalism Widr Template:TextLicenseFreeUse 2024-11-09 16:02 indefinite edit,move Reduce excessive protection Pppery

Requesting RfC be re-closed

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 re-closed.

• The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([1][2]) or MOS:WEASEL ([3]). 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 ([4][5]) 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 ([6][7]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([8][9]) 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)

Changing to request to re-close.VR _talk 19:41, 23 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[10]). 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)

• This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR _talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 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[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR _talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome — what? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.

With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.

So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your "sorry" (which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago: the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.

With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.

If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.

I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.

But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your "Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources?" (I also believe this should be taken really more seriously now). --Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:

• ”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”

• "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.

• "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."

• "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."

• "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."

The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([13][14]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.VR _talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR _talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent in response to your poins:

1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:

"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and 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.”

International Policy Digest

"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... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."

National Interest

"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. 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."

Arab News

All three sources support "while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult", so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.

2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to what you said, this version is truely violating NPOV (explained mutliple times). Anyway, this long wall of text does not discredit the important points raised by experienced users here. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way, "(one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented". LOL! Is it what you understand from NPOV? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice re: would we need a new admin?

• Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• عمرو_بن_كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as Amr ibn Kulthoum}}
• Fiveby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm trying to stay uninvolved at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, which is fully protected with a lead that has disputed content. Discussion is stalling out over making any changes whatsoever. I am thinking it might help break the logjam if the lead is stripped of all disputed content, then consensus formed to add stuff back in per ONUS. If I suggest this and delete from the lead everything at least X# editors object to, have I made myself involved? I'm the only admin working there, so unless someone else is willing to come in as an admin, I don't want to become involved. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, That is an unusual approach, and its a pretty short lead anyway, I think if you removed the controversial content you'd have no lead. Your course of action could work, but you would need to get consensus to do so, otherwise that's clearly making you involved. I've put the article on my watchlist, and take a look to see what can be done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, hi there - sorry, I started trying to moderate that talk page, then work got too full on. Thanks for picking up the baton. I think that Ed Johnston has some familiarity with the dispute. FWIW, I agree that a stripped back, basic, uncontroversial lead might be a good starting point. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bollocks - misfired my ping to EdJohnston, sorry. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage User:Valereee to keep trying to mediate at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. If possible they should try to avoid editing the article directly. If you think the lead ought to be shortened, offer the 'before' and 'after' versions for review on the talk page and ask for editors to vote. If you want an outside admin to take a look at a specific question you could ping me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye, thanks, all. I'll hang in as long as Levivich hangs in. :) —valereee (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the sales pitch needs work, val. Maybe something like this:

HEY! ADMIN AND EXPERIENCED EDITORS! You've been working hard, you deserve a break! Come and relax at sunny Syrian Kurdistan, where the conversation is ample and you're sure to make new friends. You can read a book (or twenty, there's quite a few to get through), have a drink (or twenty), or, for those seeking something more adventurous, explore the Holy Walls of Text in the ancient Talk Page Archives. There's something for everyone at Syrian Kurdistan! Visit today! Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sold! El_C 17:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, CaptainEek, Girth Summit, EdJohnston, ANYONE. I've already p-blocked two editors from this talk who were POV-pushing. There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments. I am a bit loathe to myself block the last editor who is arguing that side because frankly it feels like one admin throwing too much weight around. Could someone else please take a look in hopes that we can finally make incremental progress here? Or could someone else please come in as an editor and weigh in on the sourcing/content dispute? Or tell me to turn into an editor, and you can become the admin? Tag, you're it! Also someone should give Levivich a goddamn knighthood. —valereee (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added pagelinks for Syrian Kurdistan at the top of this thread. I've also included userlinks for the two people that got partial blocks from the talk page, as well as User:Supreme Deliciousness who I guess may be the person that Valereee thinks is making 'stale POV-pushing arguments'. The dispute at Syrian Kurdistan has been running for a long time, and at some point, I think the interested editors ought to organize their own dispute resolution. When this doesn't happen and the matter falls to the admins to resolve, there is a risk of a random or quirky outcome, since they usually don't know the content. The use of partial blocks from talk is an idea I haven't seen before though I see the logic of it. If you want a more 'classic' way of handling the situation from an admin standpoint you could issue restrictions under WP:GS/SCW to the editors you believe aren't being cooperative and then those bans could get reviewed at WP:AN. But personally I don't object to the partial blocks from Talk. In the past, messy cases like this have sometimes gone to Arbcom, but I see that outcome as a failure by admins collectively to use strong enough measures to deal with things that have run for a long time without resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I don't care about classic but I'd love any approach that works better! :) I really wanted to avoid issuing topic bans. I dislike them and I think they're traps. But the recent RMs make me think that's probably what's going to end up being needed. The two editors I p-blocked just moved on to other contentious articles about the Syrian civil war. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm new to this topic area and don't have all the (many, probably hundreds) of pages watchlisted but after doing some digging I have concerns about editing on articles well beyond Syrian Kurdistan and even those recent SK-related RMs, into other (non-Syrian) Kurdish-related articles. I think we need to extend the WP:GS/SCW to include all of "Kurdistan" and anything related to Kurds (I believe El C presciently suggested this some time ago). In addition, let's have the community look again at some of the editing that's been going on, particularly since the last ANI reports. We haven't really had a "clean" presentation of the POV-pushing evidence, separate from incivility/bludgeoning issues. Now that the latter is actually under control, the former becomes clearer. I don't like TBANs either, and originally I was thinking someone should file an arbcom case after the new year, but this won't keep until then. There is ongoing removal of Kurdish-related content from so many articles (happening today, yesterday, the day before) that I think we need some kind of "emergency injunction". So I think I'm going to collect some recent diffs and open a thread here and see where that gets us. At least the community can take one more crack at it and if that doesn't resolve the disruption, then I guess Arbcom? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the GS are so rarely used for actual problems that I doubt it’d make a difference. From what I remember of the logs, most usage of GS is spammers / trolls / obvious disputes, or your typical page protection. I doubt it would help with disputes like this. GS is barely effective as it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea what's happening right now as I've yet to review this thread's contents beyond the comment directly above where I was pinged, so this is a general statement only: expanding the SCW GS is problematic because of the narrow timeframe and geography — Kurds in Iran, for example, wouldn't really fit. The reason GS is less effective than DS is because its operation is more diffused. DS has AE, which is a superior forum to here (AN). Also, the final authority for DS is the Arbitration Committee, which as far review mechanisms go, is a more stable proposition than that of the community for GS. Anyway, however we are able to turn the tide, I'm all for that. Please notify me whenever this is attempted so that I could contribute. El_C 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK I will post some recent diffs to a subpage and we can go from there. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee, El C, EdJohnston, and Girth Summit: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds. I looked for diffs in Dec 2020, then after a bit, I stopped looking for more. The list does not include all relevant editors, articles, or diffs, but it's enough to get the idea. All editors named have been notified. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, El C, Ivanvector, Girth Summit, would it be in violation of a topic ban to post further diffs to the subpage Levivich has created? There is much to add. GPinkerton (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, GPinkerton, it would be. But for my part, I could see myself being amenable to briefly suspending the ban for that page so that you'd at least enjoy some limited participation. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Even if it would be appropriate for me to unilaterally authorize this for you, I'm too unsure as to how to proceed at the moment without further input. And by that I also mean beyond the matter of suspending your ban. Because beyond it, I'm not even sure that the current state of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds and its talk page (especially) makes it the best fit. Perhaps going straight to the Committee, whether via ARCA or a full case, is the way to go. It's fine having an informal evidence-gathering page, but once it also turns into a debate arena, that's when I start having doubts. Certainly interested to learn what others think. El_C 05:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkteron I'd probably defer to El_C regarding the terms of your ban, I'm not sure what the exact restriction is. I can't see it at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, maybe I'm being dense - do you know if it has been formally logged? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, that's actually on me, I'm realizing. I mean, the blocking admin is the one who thought up the sanction, but I'm the one who clicked the unblock button once agreement was reached. Grr, that means I have to negotiate that annoying table at WP:RESTRICT — I wish it was more like WP:AEL. El_C 17:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, can I just appeal for it to be lifted as now-redundant, given that my concerns have basically been vindicated? In any case I'm not interested in joining the discussion, I'd just like to merge the diffs in the ANI reports I was blocked for with the diffs collected by others to save everyone going round the carousel yet again. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I suppose you could, but I would strongly advise against doing so at this time. The agreement you signed up for as a condition for lifting the indefinite block was that the sanction would not be revisited for at least 6 months. That said, if and/or when this ends up falling under the Committee's purview, then I certainly would not find fault with you appealing the sanction directly to them. El_C 21:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I do not think I would conclude your "concerns have basically been vindicated". You were removed from the article because you were so contentious there that other editors couldn't tell what the underlying problem was, and pulling your input out allowed other editors to see that the underlying problem was POV-pushing. That is not vindication. —valereee (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, editors couldn't tell what the underlying problem was ... the underlying problem was POV-pushing ... except by reading my ANI reports that said exactly that! I only mean that the substance of the issues I raised has been recognized and at least somewhat acted on. I will add the diffs unless anyone objects. GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'm not seeing an objection, so I'm going to say this has been granted as an exception to your t-ban. But I strongly recommend you lean over backwards to be fair and neutral. Go far beyond what you think is necessary. If there are reasonable complaints, it's likely a similar request for an exemption wouldn't be granted in future. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I'm just going to add what has already been on ANI + a few some similar edits that have occurred or I have found in the interim. GPinkerton (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, It's Pink-er-ton, like John Pinkerton and Allan Pinkerton! GPinkerton (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, typo burn. Please don't sent the Pinkertons after me! El_C 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, yeah that's uncle Allan, fled to the States in disgrace. GPinkerton (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha, no doubt. Way to tarnish your abolitionist creds, drunk uncle! El_C 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it would be, but like EI_C I would be amenable to relaxing the restriction for that single page and its talk. It might be a good test of your ability to contribute in the topic in way that doesn't impact articles or article talks. I'll warn you that there's already contention at the talk over whether the page is presenting only one side, so one of the things you might consider focussing on is edits that lean the other way. Sort of a devil's advocate position for you. :) —valereee (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Welp, that didn't work. —valereee (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've told GP to stop with the additions at that page. Really disappointed. —valereee (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Like I said, I only added what what has already been on ANI. Bear in mind that some of my additions have been subsequently edited, and in a way which I think demonstrates exactly what is going on. GPinkerton (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton Did you or did you not write "is taken aback at GPinkerton's refutation of his claim that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" does not appear in the book (it does and is explained), and suddenly changes his mind on "Martin Dr Martin" the erstwhile worthy academic in respectable Paris, whose PhD-thesis-turned book was published by the University of Utrecht Press, but who in Act 2 now appears a radically changed character, a mean scholar [he's actually a professor] whose book is now merely personal opinion and tainted by association with the Center for Kurdish Studies (sounds very neutral) [emphasis original] which, in the space of less than twenty-four hours, has now become unspeakably biased and unusable for reasons that remain unexplained"? —valereee (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I wrote that weeks ago. Do the diffs provided not support this interpretation? GPinkerton (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, you seem to have added it into the page in question? I literally could not care less whether the diffs support the interpretation. What I care about it whether the language is confrontational. Why would you even consider posting this there after we urged you to be neutral? —valereee (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, how would you have worded it? GPinkerton (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, to make it neutral, as was requested of you? I'd have taken out all the snark and included only that which was necessary to provide context, and the simple fact you asked the question is astonishing. I think you need to stop commenting in this discussion now, it's a violation of your topic ban. —valereee (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, things are getting really interesting here. We have t-banned user GPinkteron who just came back from being indeffed on the condition they stay away from the Middle East post 1492 topics. Well, they never respected that condition and are still trying to game the system by WP:Canvassing in several articles. They canvassed here while negotiating a t-ban and again here as soon as the indef block was lifted. They were warned by Valereee here, still they are coming back to the topic in full force on this board. Also, maybe it's time that someone look into the three arbitrary blocks dropped around by Valereee to shut down any other opinion on the Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan page. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee: I admire you saying that you are one admin throwing too much weight around. This is really the case with the three blocks you gave at that page, and the fact that you and Levivich have admitted not having prior experience in the topic makes things worse, with all due respect. Levivich has been focused on using recent literature (snapshot of 2020) and neglected/ignored the century long of history in that area since the border was created. Now, that article sounds like a PKK/PYD propaganda website. Furthermore, your expectation from GPinkerton to see the other side is way too optimistic given their history of personal attacks and POV-pushing in several articles, not just Syrian Kurdistan. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, you are welcome to ask for an unblock. I have zero objection to other admin unblocking any of you if you'll agree to stop trying to use sources that aren't recent scholarly work. That's my current goal: everyone at that article is sticking to recent independent scholarly works. There's even a handy list of such works pinned to the top of the page, a list collected from suggestions by multiple editors. If you know of other recent scholarly works that belong on that list, you can argue for their inclusion. What you can't do, and what SD did yesterday, was bring in a 1946 CIA report and argue that it is a reliable source for anything other than what the report itself says. As I explained to SD at their talk, other editors having to explain this ad nauseam wastes those editors' time, and that is disruptive. —valereee (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly object to valereees comment about "There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments" I'm discussing in a calm way at the talkpage, everything I have said is backed up by reliable sources and I am not going to edit war with anyone at that article. The article/talkpage is calm now. I also strongly object to the incorrect blocks of عمرو_بن_كلثوم and Fiveby which were both unfounded.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. An unfounded claim about an action you claim is unfounded (word salad!) seems like a bit of a non-starter. Just seems a bit silly for you to even bother expressing such a stark disagreement with valereee's blocks when you provide zero substance. Maybe it's a sign of the times that I need to spell this out, but: zero substance → zero traction. El_C 01:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please keep discussions on content to the article's talk page.

Supreme Deliciousness, you literally have just argued for the nth time that the current lead sentence, which contains disputed material that editors have would have every right remove except the article is fully protected, is "more neutral" than the proposed one. For comparison, the current lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria. The proposed lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast. Syrian Kurdistan is sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan", alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê‎‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises'), Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Northern Kurdistan'), and Iraqi Kurdistan (Kurdish: Başûrê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Southern Kurdistan'). You have literally been arguing for weeks now that Syrian Kurdistan "isn't a place", that "all sides and all views" must be present in the lead sentence. You haven't budged from that, even when policy and scholarship have been presented to you, and I believe that while you're working in good faith, you believe what you believe and can't accept what the scholars say, and the result is well-intentioned POV-pushing. It is not an unfair description of what you've been doing at that article. —valereee (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Why are only scholarship mentioning "Syrian Kurdistan" relevant to you? Why are scholars using other terms for the area not relevant to you? The talkpage is to discuss disputes, and as long as the discussion is civil, then there isn't any problem. I already said that I'm not going to engage in any edit war over the issue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness, no, there's also WP:CIVILPOV, which is still disruptive. To be clear, it's nothing to do with what's relevant to me. I am not arguing with you about sourcing or content. I am telling you what I am seeing: one editor, when presented with a preponderance of sources using the same term for an area, listing other phrases used to refer to it in various contexts and using that to insist that until all authors refer to it in all contexts in a single way, Wikipedia must continue to present it as "some people say" instead of "is". What I'm telling you is from the point of view of someone who really doesn't care what the lead says, this isn't a reasonable standard. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC) If you google "Syrian Kurdistan" then obviously that's what your going to find, so you need to google something else to find other names for the area. Who recognizes a "Syrian Kurdistan" ? Which country? Which international organ? We have scholary sources that say that the term "Syrian Kurdistan" is "mythology" and "imagined community" and was rarely used before 2012, so why should "Syrian Kurdistan" be presented as an undisputed official name for the area? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ARC or ARCA?

It seems to me the only question remaining is whether (1) this dispute is submitted to Arbcom in the form of a full case request at WP:ARC, which means Arbcom would be the one taking any enforcement action, or (2) this dispute is submitted to Arbcom at WP:ARCA seeking authorization of DS in the topic area (whatever the scope may be), which means admins would be the one taking any enforcement action. I'm leaning #1 because I don't see a bunch of admin saying "We'd totally take enforcement action if only we were authorized" which is when #2 would make sense. Initially I wasn't crazy about a full arbcom case, but I've come to believe it's the only choice. What do others think, esp. admin? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it should be clear to everyone what and who the problem is (/are), I think the immediate issue could be overcome with a few judicious bans for incorrigible POV-pushing. Whether this needs an ARC or ARCA to deal with the issue in future is not something I have an opinion on, but would support either and prefer and ARC. GPinkerton (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

this edit should tell anyone all they need to know about this issue. GPinkerton (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Is ARCA valid? I thought ARCA was to amend or clarify cases ArbCom has ruled on, but I don't think it's ruled on this case or area, so there's nothing to amend? They surely could decide to close a case by motion and enact DS, but I personally think doing so is generally a bit lazy and they should consider a dispute in full to ensure DS is actually the right tool for the job.

Recognising the concern about GS's effectiveness I raised above & the issues El C detailed, if admins already know what they want to do in this area, but they don't feel the tools are there for them, then maybe it's indeed worth a shot at creating a sub-section proposing to extend the SCW sanctions to Kurdistan (OR just changing it to "all pages related to Syria or ISIL, broadly construed" -- there is precedent for broad authorisations like this, see WP:ARBIPA, and this broad route is perhaps clearer and more future-proof). At least in theory, I think GS is equivalent to DS in terms of admin power (minus deletion), and easier to enact. It could SNOW close in favour so not much time wasted if it doesn't help, but if so that might suggest this is nuanced enough for a full case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I keep going around that circle myself, unsure which way to go: expand GS, request DS, request a full case, just post a bunch of TBAN proposals at ANI? Right now I'm thinking that it's not really fair or feasible to ask admin or non-admin editors to take the time required to go through all the diffs to figure out if a TBAN or other sanction is justified. That thankless task is probably best laid on arbitrators' shoulders, because they were foolish enough to get themselves elected for such tasks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree on that score, but perhaps it also couldn't hurt to try the admin route one last time. GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe ping in the admins who are working in this area (El C, valereee et al) and see if they’d be willing and confident in taking GS actions if the option was clearly available to them? If maybe, not much is lost by passing an amendment and seems worth a try? If not, then the arb direction seems the only option, but also is ArbCom even able to deal with diverse WP:CIVILPOV pushing (which, from the above, I gather is the main concern here)? I dunno, but the essay would lead one to think they aren’t. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For those who wish for direct Committee adjudication and enforcement on participants of the latest dispute, the workload of a full case is one path. Those who are more concerned with the topic area, overall, are free to request for DS to be authorized by motion (which need not be deemed inherently "lazy," I challenge). Myself, I have no real preference, as I don't really intend on contributing too intensively or extensively to either one. Also, can someone please fill me in about why GPinkerton is suddenly discussing the dispute directly, here, as well as contributing to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds? I realize we had discussed maybe allowing them to do so at some point, but I was unaware that a decision has already been made. Wow, GPinkerton, you are keeping me busy tonight... El_C 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, [15] and [16] GPinkerton (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s why I say generally. The Horn of Africa seemed a good case for a motion route, but here there seems to be a lot going on, and not mainly socking. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, thanks — gotcha. ProcrastinatingReader, sure, that isn't an unreasonable assumption to make. But I do note that last time I encountered disruption in the topic area, it did not involve any of the latest participants or what they currently dispute — it was more on the linguistic front of how Yazidis view Kurmanji (as Ezdîkî, and so on). Anyway, socking in that dispute was totally out of control, prompting me to protect tens of articles. El_C 05:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@El C: How would you describe the scope of the relevant (disrupted) topic area? It's not just Syria and it's not just Kurds... I keep coming back to "the Middle East", which seems overly broad, but maybe not. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, my preference is for it to encompass anything having to do with the Kurds, anywhere. Kurds in Germany? Yes. El_C 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it should be framed in whatever way the Palestine issue is dealt with, only with more countries, more disputed homelands, and more millions of people involved! Unsurprisingly, it also touches on the most recent war in the Caucasus. GPinkerton (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. I think the SCW GS already covers anything which, like that, is a direct product of the civil war (although that specifically is more broadly covered by WP:ARBAA2). Anyway, some ARBPIA and IRANPOL overlap is also to be expected. But, regardless, I think the Kurds are the true heart of it, again, without there needing to be one specific geographical locale. El_C 06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, what in the world are you doing? This entire ARC/ARCA discussion is a vio of your topic ban. You asked for and received (temporarily) permission to add to the diffs page. You did not ask for permission to contribute to this discussion. I understand the confusion, but stop now. —valereee (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@El C that would be my fault. You'd said you were amenable, GS said they'd defer to you, I said I'd be amenable also, and when there were no objections I told them they could add diffs to that page and warned them to "lean over backwards" to do it neutrally, a warning they didn't heed even a tiny bit, so I told them to stop. I don't think we should repeat the experiment. I think they may have been confused about whether it also meant they were welcome to participate in this discussion. —valereee (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Would also support a case concerning Kurds in a broader way anywhere.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile we are discussing how to present the Kurdish issue to the ArbCom, there also exists WP:NATIONALISTS (an essay) which covers quite a wide spectrum of the dispute we had last month at Syrian Kurdistan. To upgrade this essay into a guideline might also help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I get the sense that, unlike my own aim at closing gaps in existing sanction regimes, others here may be after what effectively is asking the Committee to upgrade a GS (SCW) into a DS, mainly for more effective enforcement. Which, if that's the case, it should be clearly noted. My view is that there are gaps in WP:ARBPIA, as can be seen with pages such as Kurds in Israel (there are almost a quarter of a million of these) or the Kurdish American Caucus; gaps in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics, as can be seen in such pages as Kurds in Iran and Iranian Kurdistan for anything pre-1978; and finally, gaps in WP:SCW, involving any disputes which may have risen to the fore because of and are now somewhat intertwined with the Syrian Civil War, so as to make invoking its GS more challenging — can't really recall the specifics of this example, but I vaguely remember there being a conflict recently over historical demography data (or internal migration policies, or both, I forget) well preceding the civil war. Anyway, coming across as pretty much only seeking to upgrade one sanction regime with another, could be the downside of a Motion. But, if participants go the route of a full case, then they can say: 'the SCW GS has proven insufficient to resolve this particular dispute. We require Committee counsel and/or intervention.' Which, on its face, is a perfectly legitimate request to submit. El_C 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then we probably better go for a case. New year is here and now I would have the time. Levivich also mentioned that a case would probably the only solution. I'll open a new discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds to gather issues to be discussed, the diffs can still be added at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds until we agree on how to present a case.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Unban

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

---

They banned me more than 3 months ago because I posted some info from The Lancet about studies related to Gam-COVID-Vac. I started that article on 12 August 2020. But I noticed that similar information was added to the article about Moderna's vaccine here, and the editors who made those contributions were not topic banned and the added text was not removed. Here is the text fragment that I was banned for by Salvio giuliano:

On 4 September 2020, in The Lancet, findings from two phase 1/2 of the vaccine were presented. The researchers enrolled 76 healthy adult volunteers (aged 18–60 years) into the two studies (38 people in each study). The primary outcome measures of the studies were safety and immunogenicity.

And this is the text about Moderna's vaccine:

On November 16, 2020, Moderna announced preliminary data from its Phase III clinical trial, indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection

And as no one was blocked for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine (even without any WP:MEDRS as it was substantiated by RexxS regarding my topic ban), then my topic ban should be reviewed because it seems to be erroneous. Moreover, my edits, for which I was blocked, did not violate WP:MEDRS. I am ready to conduct constructive work on the expansion and development of the article I started. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the obvious difference is that one vaccine's results were given from phase III trials, which is designed to determine clinical effectiveness, and you gave the other from phase 1/2 (I'm not sure what you mean by that), which are not, and only involved a few dozen people rather than the tens of thousands involved in a phase III trial. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: "Moderna announced [...] indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection"... Why in my case when I cited The Lancet it is not good and "Moderna announced" is good? What specific WP rule do you have in mind?

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

How about talking about trial phases in any further response that make? That was obviously the point of my comment, but you have completely ignored it in your goalpost-moving reply. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that this message itself is a topic ban violation, and the user must be blocked. Note also that he was recently unblocked by the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom and managed to survive4 only a few days before being indefinitely blocked (effectively site-banned) for wikilawyering and per NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What happens or does not happen in Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem relevant for discussing Александр Мотин's en-wiki sanctions. BANEX gives much leeway for appealing the ban. That said, their argument for unblocking is weak. It's basically a NOTTHEM argument that does not address how they would avoid making edits that are considered disruptive. If Александр Мотин fails to explain how they would avoid getting into trouble again, I would oppose lifting the ban. Politrukki (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

He may indeed appeal the ban at AN, but what he is doing is not really appealing the ban. He does not accept that the edits were disruptive in the first place (which he will continue doing until he is blocked with TPA removed, as he has already proven on many previous occasions), and, in addition, he is discussing the content of the topic he is still banned from.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The full story is that my indef site-wide block by some RuWP admin was cancelled by the Russian ArbCom and his adminship was revoked. Then, another RuWP admin, that seemed to be angry because of this, indef blocked me again for a far-fetched reason contrary to the Russian ArbCom's decision. The issue is being resolved. And I totally agree with Politrukki that your reply is irrelevant. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The adminship was revoked because he asked for it, and it was not revoked by the ArbCom but as a voluntary request. The issue has been resolved indeed - you are indefinitely blocked from editing the Russian Wikipedia. This is why you are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not true: "Paragraph 3.1 The Arbitration Committee revokes user's adminship / Арбитражный комитет снимает с участника флаг администратора (с одновременным присвоением флага подводящего итоги)". I don't see any admin's "voluntary request" in this decision. And I draw your attention to the fact that you are not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia once you call to block me upon ban appealing. The similar story is on the Russian WP regarding another indef block. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have striken out this part of my comment. Concerning your opinion that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies - well, when I ask for my unban you will be welcome to make this point (assuming you are not site-banned by then). Now we are discussing your unban, and I just do not see it happening. In fact it would save a lot of time for everybody if you get an indefinite block (which I also said last time and you have just proven me right), but if people are willing to give you more and more rope, fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that RuWP admin said almost the same and his adminship was later revoked. I mean, you're not the first admin who is trying to demonize me in this way. At the same time, I do not understand at all what I have done to you, that you are constantly hounding me and turning other editors and admins against. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the light of Ymblanter's comment and Alexander Motin's edits above I would support an indefinite block. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unban - user clearly still has problems with MEDRS and this topic specifically. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Why was nobody banned for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine if you think that I "have problems with MEDRS"? My position is fully justified. What am I wrong about? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You still don't seem to see the difference between a phase 1/2 trial, with a few dozen participants and not designed to show whether a vaccine actually works, and a phase 3 trial with tens of thousands participants which is designed to show that. Why do you carry on ignorantly making comments as if I hadn't pointed that out above? You can't avoid bans/blocks by simply ignoring statements based on scientific evidence that go against your preconceived ideas. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Phil Bridger: On your part, this is an attempt to steer the discussion into the scientific field. And, in this appeal, I write about bias and double standards in relation to my constructive contributions. I gave the examples above and this is enough to understand the situation. --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
        • My comment is totally valid. You said that you should be unblocked because edits by another editor to another article were allowed, but I pointed out that those edits are not comparable. There is a single standard here, which is to base edits on science, not politics. And please realise that you were not just blocked for one edit: that edit was simply the last straw. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Of course, I was banned for that edit. Moreover, the ANI request by RexxS was a clear demonstration of WP:ADMINSHOP. This can be seen here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            No, you were banned for long-term pro-Russian POV pushing (going well into propaganda territory) in articles related to politics and, well, complete inability to understand what was wrong with your edits. Obviously, you still have not understood it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            Well, why was nobody blocked for this so called "long-term propaganda" and "pro-(pick any country here) POV pushing" if you think my edit is pro-Russian POV pushing:

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

I'd be very interested to know.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Both of your points are, quite obviously to anyone who looks at the situation, bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Decline appeal. This is not a topic ban violation because it is an attempt at an appeal of the topic ban (WP:BANEX). However, I would decline it because it does not convince me that the decision to ban Александр Мотин was wrong. Sandstein 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that this is not a violation of the topic ban; appealing a topic ban explicitly doesn't count. I have no opinion on whether to grant the appeal. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking as an admin, not an arb (only 7 more days , thank goodness), I would grant the appeal . The violation is borderline at most. The ruWP is thankfully not our concern. We can always reblock. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Handing out a topic ban for one edit would be excessive, but that's not what happened here. The topic ban was imposed for a pattern of behaviour. I suggest we decline this, a topic ban appeal does need to address the actual reasons for the topic ban and not focus on asking for other people to be punished. Hut 8.5 18:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Appealing a topic ban does not violate that ban, but commenting on other editors' contributions in the area subject to restrictions does. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. (However, on the procedural point, I think that Александр Мотин's posts in this thread, at least thus far, are covered by WP:BANEX.) I have read through the discussion in the original September WP:AN thread that lead to the Covid+Russian politics topic ban imposition, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324#Александр Мотин and I find that the topic ban was fully justified. Александр Мотин's posts in this thread thus far clearly demonstrate why the topic ban is still needed. Nor was that September episode an isolated incident.There were earlier problems related to COVID-19, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Александр Мотин reported by Zefr. Also, Александр Мотин had earlier, this June, been indefinitely topic banned from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for disruptive editing and POV pushing there. I am neutral on the suggestion for a NOTHERE indef block. On one hand, there has been significant recent history of disruptive editing in several areas. On the other hand, the user is still contibuting, seemingly productively, on some other topics, particularly railway and subway stations. If there are problems present with Александр Мотин's editing even on those subjects, then, yes, a NOTHERE indef block would be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. I can be very supportive of unban appeals when the banned user demonstrates an understanding of the reason for the ban and shows there is no need for it any more. A couple of cases we've had have led to editors rejoining this subject area and subsequently making some very positive contributions. But in this case I'm seeing nothing like that. All I see is repetitive insistence by Александр Мотин that they have done nothing wrong, and that others should have been banned for superficially similar but actually significantly different edits. On the specific Lancet source itself, the problem with that was very clearly explained in the original ban discussion. It has also been explained several times here in this very discussion by Phil Bridger. But all I'm seeing is a refusal to listen and no attempt whatsoever to consider those explanations, and just stonewalling insistence that the ban was wrong. And that's just the triggering event for the ban, which really should be very easy to address. There has been no attempt to address the wider NPOV issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

& Since this a topic ban appeal, it would be good if someone closes it rather than lets a bot archive it without a formal close.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Ongoing Caliph issues at two talk pages

Would it be possible to get big edit notices (or semi-protection again, if that's a preferred option) at Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate due to non-stop WP:CALIPH issues please? The recent history of both is full of non-stop complaints and/or BLP violations. FDW777 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid if the users are incapable of reading the sentence directly below which they are posting (in the same topic), they will not read notices. A semi-protection for a few days looks to me the only reasonable option.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added an editnotice to Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and replaced the one at Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate with stronger wording. I suggest if you see any more posts of this type, you should simply revert them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the same kinda thing that happened at Sushant Singh Rajput earlier this year. The editnotice does not help as they cannot be seen on mobile. The community wishlist item to implement this did not get enough support, unfortunately, and the phab task is otherwise stuck. Looking at history, many of these driveby requests were submitted on mobile. My experience at SSR’s talk was that these people often don’t come back to read the response. Just revert imo, and stop the archives being clogged up with nonsense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help/advice. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

We could always repurpose Special:AbuseFilter/1106 for this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it's blowing up [17]. Be interesting to see the WMF response. Nthep (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a thread on ANI, FYI. Pahunkat (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mainpage frustration

Apologies if this isn't the right place to put this, but starting a discussion on the main page seem to lead nowhere. I went to the main page to "report an error" and was met with a rather annoying conversation about users complaining that we didn't "do enough for Beethoven's 250th". I had spent many hours working on List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven (including staying up way to late to get the DYK in time) for the lead DYK on his baptism day; and of course, all of the users discussing made no effort to do anything "for Beethoven" themselves but complained about others' apparent "failure" – even though my DYK was accompanied by 6–7 others by Gerda, who did a terrific job. Anyways, this is beside the main point, but suffice it to say, it didn't really put me in a great mood. The reason I had come to the main page was to ask why "Quaid-e-Azam Day" in OTD redirected to Muhammad Ali Jinnah rather than... uh... Quaid-e-Azam Day. I am confident that no reader will have any idea what "Quaid-e-Azam Day" is when sent to Jinnah's page, which doesn't explain it until the legacy section. Nothing seems to be done about this, and no convincing reasons have been given for this supposed error (to be clear, there has only been a response from one user). I can't help but be frustrated; I am sure that if Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter etc. linked to anything but Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter there would be mass confusion and the mistake would be fixed instantly, why is it suddenly different for this Pakistani holiday? I don't mean to make unfounded accusations of Western ignorance/bias, but I also can't help but feel such a way. (Happy holidays to all...) Aza24 (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The one response seems convincing enough to me. The "Quaid-e-Azam Day" article isn't fit for the main page and the "Muhammad Ali Jinnah" article is. The option then was to remove the entry completely or use the biography article. Quaid-e-Azam Day seems analogous to Washington's Birthday which was so unimportant to Americans that first we started calling it Presidents day and then mostly moved to MLK day, which is a much better holiday anyway. "Quaid-e-Azam Day" will be on the homepage once someone cares enough to upgrade it to homepage worthy. AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no relationship between Washington's Birthday and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. They both remain Federal holidays, and nothing was "mostly moved" from one to the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, I'm assuming AlmostFrancis meant Lincoln's Birthday, with which Washington's was merged to create Presidents' Day. StarM 01:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in certain states. Washington's Birthday remains the federal holiday, and the creation of MLK Day did not "move" anything from Washington's Birthday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Washington's_Birthday#Official_state_holidays is utterly fascinated. It's technically a state holiday where I am, yet I've only heard it called Presidents' Day. Agree re: MLK, I thought AF was conflating that with Lincoln. StarM 03:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

which was so unimportant to Americans that first we started calling it Presidents day and then mostly moved to MLK day, which is a much better holiday anyway. makes no sense, is completely false, and is backed up by no evidence. And sorry, but this explanation makes no sense either, I don't understand how linking to Jinnah, featured or not, gives any information as to Quaid-e-Azam Day at all. The only thing it says in the article is "His birthday is observed as a national holiday, Quaid-e-Azam Day, in Pakistan" – which means nothing, and is less information on the holiday than the Quaid-e-Azam Day article itself, which is fully referenced. I don't understand why no one here even recognizes that if a reader clicked on "Quaid-e-Azam Day" and was brought to the Muhammad Ali Jinnah page, they would still have no idea what the holiday even is – it's mentioned many paragraphs down in the Legacy section. The 5 million people who saw the main page on the 25th, were given a holiday that doesn't link to anything helpful or informative. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, there's always next year I guess. The main page very nearly missed the 75th VE Day altogether this year, and that's, I daresay, even more important than the founder's birthday in either nation. I wholly agree with everything you've said though. GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for my yearly reminder to not be glib on the internet. From the selected aniversary directions "The selected article (boldface item) must not be a stub and must be a relatively complete and well-formatted article, free from 'yellow'-level or more severe article issue tags". The article "Quaid-e-Azam Day" in not relatively complete and the only reason it does not have article tags is becasue no one has bothered. A quick look showed that much of the article is using a single years activies to generalize what happens every year, so would not pass verification in its current form. Now granted some aricles I am sure slip by but this article only would have survived errors if no one noticed. Of course there could be lesser rules for holidays as opposed to entries but it doesn't seem so. Both Shavuot and Easter have been ommited for lesser issues than Quaid-e-Azam day has. AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Is discussion of T. D. Adler editorials permitted on article talk pages?

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

---

I started a discussion at User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Repeatedly_reverting_me_on_talk_pages. The editor thinks that my talk page comments referring to T. D. Adler should be reverted or archived because T. D. Adler was banned from Wikipedia and Breitbart (his primary publishing outlet) is deprecated. I disagree, and have had no contact or coordination with T. D. Adler on or off-wiki. A somewhat similar conversation that I started with another editor is ongoing and appears to be at least somewhat conciliatory. This particular user though is digging in his heals.

I am looking for informed persons here to weigh in about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, Adler was banned from WP for off-wiki harassment of other editors. They have continued this with around 60 “editorials” enabled by Breitbart. (Can't link to the list as the site is blacklisted.) I don’t know your purpose – but, knowingly or not, linking to posts like this on multiple article TPs [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] contributes to harassment and is not helpful to the project as Adler’s posts look like a year-long rant. Perhaps you should just explain your purpose. O3000 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A large number of Epiphyllumlover's recent edits have involved inserting and reinserting links on article talk pages to material written in various places by The Devil's Advocate, who has been permanently banned from the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a number of reasons. Kamala Harris, Mark Levin, CNN controversies, Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, Lauren Southern, Sarah Jeong, Ilhan Omar, and The Epoch Times. This material, posted on right-wing extremist sites such as Breitbart or even what amounts to a personal blog, includes personal attacks, false claims, and bad-faith accusations against a number of named Wikipedians. The links to Breitbart are even blacklisted, so they've had to intentionally evade the blacklist to post them.

Myself and several other editors, including Philip Cross, Binksternet, and JayBeeEll, have objected and reverted the links, and attempted to explain to them why they are objectionable. Epiphyllumlover frames their posts as just asking questions, but I view the wholesale and widespread posting of links to material carrying out the obvious retaliatory vendetta of a banned user to be dangerously close to proxying for said banned editor. There is no reason for this material to be linked on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I do not think I have anything to add to your comments or to O3000's, both of which seem to accurately describe the situation. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I admit I haven't read most of them but I'm surprised to see TDA's articles at Breitbart referred to as "harassment". Maybe this is my American bias speaking but I feel like freedom of the press and freedom of speech are important even if we disagree with what people say. What's the difference between TDA's articles at Breitbart and someone else's blog post at Wikipediocracy, or any of the many other websites where people write about Wikipedia (some of whom are also banned editors)? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, in this instance the difference is that someone tried to spam them across a large number of articles without articulating a plausible story about how that might be related to improving the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I brought up off-wiki harassment as I think that’s a part of his block. I suppose continuing it at Breitbart with 60 “editorials”, after an indef, is not harassment. But, sprinkling links to them in ATPs seems questionable, particularly when some out editor names. O3000 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  You should probably read them, then, because they basically consist of a slew of false accusations, personal attacks, and axe-grinding against long-term editors. For example, there is a claim in one article that Snooganssnoogans "smeared" The Gateway Pundit by (accurately, and with a slew of sources) describing the site as "known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes." That this statement is impeccably sourced and factually true is irrelevant to TDA - they describe it as "smears of conservatives" because... well, because their feelings are hurt by the facts, I suppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not perceiving a difference between someone writing that someone "smeared" an organization, and you writing just now about someone that "their feelings are hurt by the facts". In both instances, someone is saying something unkind about someone on the internet. Spamming links (to anything) is a different story; talk pages should be used for talking about improving articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  If there was any conversation at all about improving articles, this thread probably wouldn't have been started. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be a ban on discussing them, if it's relevant to improving an article. However, simply spamming "what do you think about this" for many of his editorials is inappropriate, especially when the articles are a banned editor posting on a blacklisted site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a situation where no amount of disingenuous posturing is going to cover the fact that these are links to content from banned users with a history of attacking and harassing Wikipedians. There is no justification for posting links to such material here. If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content, you can be blocked as clearly not here to improve this encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. Apparently, there is consensus that Breitbart must be deprecated, and the site have been blacklisted. This means that any information published there is not considered by the community to be useful for improving Wikipedia, with a possible exception of information of Breitbart itself. If someone wants to change this consensus, they must open an RfC and explain why Breitbart should be removed from the blacklit, or why certain aspects of its publications can improve Wiokipedia. Technically speaking (though IMO exremely unlikely) an outcome of this discussion could even be that Adler's editorials are reliable sources and thus can be cited.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically they can still be used under opinion type stuff. Per the RFC and RSP This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. No idea what that situation would be but there ya go. PackMecEng (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Epiphyllumlover: Checking those links would be boring so let me say that from now, anyone who amplifies the thoughts of a banned user will be blocked. Sure, if there were a chance that material might be useful for improving an article, it might mentioned. However, breitbart.com is not a reliable source so mentioning that site would be misguided. In particular, mentioning it in multiple places would indicate a disinterest in improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has fans and haters—neither have a right to be amplified on talk pages. Free speech is great but this is not the website for that. An amusing feature of this issue is that whereas Wikipediocracy would normally be the right place to discuss such opinions, they might not allow amplification of TDA's thoughts either. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Echoing some of the above: linking a TDA "editorial" or Breitbart article on a talkpage as a possible source might be an innocent suggestion from someone unaware of the spam blacklist. Linking TDA editorials and Breitbart articles on multiple pages, including spacing in the url to get around the blacklist restriction, is bordering on disingenuous. Please stop doing this. These editorials are not reliable sources and your continued posting of them is a misuse of article talkpages. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• We have consensus that posting references to Adler's content en masse is disruption, from how I read the above. But discussion of the articles is not prohibited, so far as I am aware. My user page contains (right at the bottom) quotes and my summaries of two of Adler's articles, as I'm rather proud of my mentions in them (I'm portrayed negatively, of course). So far I've seen nobody object but I would remove it if I saw it causing significant controversy. It seems to me that referencing the articles is only disruptive if such actions would be disruptive whether or not it was specifically Adler and Breitbart (i.e. spam posting of links to a particular website is not helpful on talk pages unless it relates to something immediately and uncontroversially actionable). — Bilorv (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't suggest that WP:DENY would be effective with someone as dedicated as TDA but the more we say about him and his predictable opinions, the more trouble we bring for the encyclopedia. If you really want to publicize his achievements on your user page, I guess that's ok, but using an article talk page to chat about a blacklisted, guaranteed unreliable opinion would not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Bilorv's summary. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. I suspect Adler is a crypto-Wikipedian, given his manner of writing and strong attachment to the subject. He may reconcile with you someday, but it won't be tomorrow.

I intend to post Adler links to talk pages only if there is a particular & relevant topic to discuss that is described in the links. Because he is banned I will not post the general "I don't endorse this, but you might find it helpful" type message.

From your discussion I can see that there is no consensus that posting an Adler link constitutes "proxying for said banned editor". Rather the policies it runs up against are the ones on spamming & constructiveness. That Adler is banned is not really the problem; rather it was that my edits could be interpreted as spamming or as being of limited constructiveness.

My response to the "large number of articles" type comments is that they are exaggerations. Moreover, I don't have any other such article up my sleeve to add in even if you gave me a green light.

My response about the "If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content" is that it ignores the good-faith which I have repeatedly demonstrated. As for the blacklisting aspect and using a space to break the link; as I understand it the software cannot differentiate between links to articles and links to talk pages. So there is nothing disingenuous about getting around a software defect.

My response to the "not here" comment is that even if 70% of an editorial is trash, it is possible that something else might be helpful. (Not in the article--but for editors trying to understand where the article came from and where it is going.) Specifically that he summarizes the edit history of highly contested articles is helpful. As an analogy, some Catholic libraries keep a copy of the Examination of the Council of Trent even though it is Lutheran and highly critical of the Council of Trent. The reason for this is that they find some value in the dialectic nature of the dispute. Also, the volumes contain many quotes and summarize a great deal of sources on interesting topics. So it is helpful for understanding what went on at Trent, even though it is a critical source that was on the Index of Forbidden Books sort of like Breitbart is today.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The only reason to post something on an article talk page is to make an actionable proposal to improve the article based on policy. Adding links that are indistinguishable from trolling and/or proxying for a banned user and/or lack of competence will lead to a block. You might feel that a block issued by me would be overturned on appeal—that is your call. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think Bilorv did a good job covering the situation. Also WP:DENY is not really a thing in this situation or in general really given it is only a user essay. PackMecEng (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The only reason to post"--you mean, aside from the media mention template. (But Breitbart is not supposed to be posted to the media mention template because it is depreciated.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, you write: "It is hard to avoid them because Google News indexes them." Editors are expected to use crap filters. Google finds everything, and you should know better than to use (or even read) the junk it finds. A failure to have a well-developed crap filter is problematic. You are not some random person who doesn't understand our RS policy, or knows that Breitbart is a deprecated source. Even without a crap filter, you know that much, and yet you persist in proxying for a banned user. You know the author is banned, that type of content is forbidden, and that the source is unreliable and deprecated/blacklisted. You have no excuse for linking to it or even mentioning it here. All those diffs of your edits should be revdeleted as some of those links endanger the lives of editors here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not against consensus or policy from what I can tell. The only issue might be the on masse part. PackMecEng (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, only by jettisoning my crap filter was I able to find more media mention template candidates, because the top rate newsmedia sources don't cite or discuss Wikipedia as much. (But yes, there are downsides to this.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would you jettison your crap filter? You do realize that most of what resides on the Internet is utter nonsense as anyone can post anything therein. In my field, 99+% of what is posted is idiocy. This is an encyclopedia, not aa aggregator looking for hits to sell baldness products and viagra. But, I really am a French model. O3000 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Jettisoning my crap filter". Luv it! Take a "walk on the wild side" at your own peril. What you do off-wiki is your own business, just don't bring it here. We don't want the results of unprotected browsing infecting us here. I do that too, but strictly for research purposes, and never for use as content here. That's how I can recognize where some people get their ideas and know when they are referring to misinformation found on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TDA may engage in what a reasonable person could construe as defamation or false light which could be actionable, and I strongly discourage anyone from posting any of it anywhere on Wikipedia. (hi TDA!) soibangla (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreeing with those above that these editorials should not be linked. The Devil's Advocate/"T.D. Adler" has been using Breitbart to continue his grudges against various Wikipedia editors (full disclosure, I am one of them), and we should not be encouraging his attempts to continue to harass editors (or direct harassment towards them via Breitbart's readers) even after being banned for such behavior. For those arguing that TDA's writings are somehow critically useful, the few I've read have been riddled with falsehoods, either intentional or due to sloppy research, and intentional bending of facts to try to fit his narrative. There is no editorial value to these Breitbart op-eds at all; they are a pretty transparent attempt at drawing clicks to Breitbart via the tired "the internet is being destroyed by leftists!" trope, although I have to wonder at how successful they are given that they often go far deeper into Wikipedia esoterica than I would think would interest your average reader of Breitbart (or any other publication other than perhaps the Signpost). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User becoming more erratic and disruptive

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

---

Over the last few years user Bilcat has had multiple complaints about becoming incoherent and edit warring. Bilcat suffers from severe medical problems and often has trouble controlling himself. This is becoming more and more of a problem and I would like it addressed.

For instance:

Here he has removed information which is already sourced while claiming it is not. Article clearly states and sources the information TWICE, but he removed it for not having sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III&diff=prev&oldid=996857631

Nonsensical revert that has nothing to do with what he reverted. Compare his reason to the text he reverted. They have nothing to do with one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Me_262&type=revision&diff=996853881&oldid=996853087

He also routinely uses the wrong templates, which cause confusion for admins. For instance, here he used a unconstructive template for obvious vandalism calling someone a terrorist. This causes confusion for admins checking user pages for previous warnings and disrupts the admin process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Incendiary_Taco

His history is also full of reverts that have nothing to do with anything but his personal preferences. What he is reverting is not actual violations, he's just doing it for the sake of doing it.

If he is having medical issues that cloud his judgement then he needs to address those issues instead of taking it out on random wiki members and being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.54.254 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The above smells distinctly of sour grapes. The first says nothign about not having sources; the second is a canned edit summary (the horror!) and the third is a light touch (super horror). If that's all you have to complain about an editor doing then I'd suggest you take a moment to remember policy prohibits personal attacks, and going "an editor has medical problems!!" is a personal attack if I ever saw one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Clear requirement for WP:BOOMERANG here for unprovoked personal attacks against a longstanding and valued editor. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Bilcat has reverted hundreds of instances of vandalism in articles related to the U.S military in recent years. His edits mostly relate to removing vandalism or edits that do not have required citations. In my opinion, Bilcat is doing a damned fine job. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I blocked a range instead of a single IP address

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

---

A while ago, I wanted to extend the block for 85.76.76.45 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot), but when I was done, I realized that a whole /16 range was blocked; presumably because that was the range chosen for the last block from earlier this month (a page specific block). That makes sense, too, since the same person also edited from 85.76.64.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). However, the edits from that address were not always just trolling; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=997019537 was actually helpful. The same goes for other addresses in that range. So maybe the best way to proceed would be to keep the page specific block for the range for the original duration of 2 years, but apply the site wide block only for a much shorter period.

I had originally posted this at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Exemption for not logged in users in search for the best way to resolve this, but I now realized that that was too narrow, and I need to be off Wiki for half a day, so I'm moving it here for greater visibility. Please don't hesitate to undo my actions in this case. Sorry about any inconvenience this may cause. ◅ Sebastian 23:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple things going on here. Your reference desk editor is within 85.76.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), except for a handful of older edits in 85.76.48.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The editor who is the target of ToBeFree's earlier page block is a different editor, and that one edit is their only edit on that whole /16 range, for the range of time that I can look at. I don't think there's any reason for the entire /16 to be blocked for two years, it's quite a busy range. Why did you want to block the refdesk editor anyway? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking this. I blocked them because I saw only trolling in their contributions. Since I realized, as I wrote above, that the same person did some helpful edits, the easiest solution is to unblock the whole range, which I just did. You already pinged ToBeFree, but I will leave a message on his talk page, too. ◅ Sebastian 10:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The page-specific 2-year rangeblock on the /16 was an alternative to semiprotection of a user talk page, in response to severe, repeated harassment. I'll have a look again later, but that's "any reason" regarding my original partial block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a look again. You may filter the /16 contributions for the User talk namespace to see the extent of these ugly attacks. Per the last sentence of Special:Diff/997185742, I have reinstated the partial, not-account-creation-blocking, anon-only partial block. Thanks for the ping and the message ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat over at BLP Noticeboard

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

---

Please see Special:Diff/997099174 for relevant details. #3 in particular. Have a nice day. Slywriter (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - checking. Chetsford (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC); edited 02:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

A motion regarding The Rambling Man case at Requests for Clarification and Amendment has been enacted after it reached majority support. The motion is as follows:

The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" again

Hi all,

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" - what's happening with them? from July 2020 - they are happening again.

Examples:

• Draft:Sample page/17763282
• Draft:Sample page/22718491
• Draft:Sample page/99246948

Sensu stricto they don't meet the WP:G2 criterion for speedy deletion - "This criterion applies neither to sandboxes nor to pages in the user namespace" - as they are intended to be sandboxes.

OK if I leave this to wiser heads that mine? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Shirt58, thanks for circling back on this. If I recall, the place we arrived at in July discussion and preceding VPT thread was that it'd be nice to have a bot automatically clean these up on after some period of time (perhaps a month) so that admins wouldn't have to do it manually when the normal six months expires. A request was created at WP:BOTREQ, but it didn't get taken up before it got archived. If there are enough of these pages that they continue to be a nuisance, perhaps revive the bot request? Feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do further to help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I believe the issue is not with their existence, but with the fact that they are still being created. xaosflux, what happened to your "BRD" plan at Help:Introduction to Wikipedia? Primefac (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just never personally did it, still don't really think these are a good idea though. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The wording of {{db-g2}}, that you quote above, does not seem to match with the policy (WP:G2) which says: This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. It does not apply to pages in the user namespace. It does not apply to valid but unused or duplicate templates. Ivanvector since you suggested G2 applies at the BOTREQ, thoughts? I also would've thought these fit the WP:G2 wording.

I don't know about good idea or not, but I don't particularly see why these are so problematic. After all, users could create pages like this in their userspace, and that would be all okay? Should a bot really be deleting these? What if someone turned one of these into a valid draft article, then the normal G13 process should apply -- a bot couldn't tell the difference. I'm also not sure if an admin having to check Special:PrefixIndex every month or so and delete a dozen pages is that big of a deal tbh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The button at H:ITW doesn't imply in any way "use this to create an article!" but rather implies that you're editing something akin to WP:Sandbox. Hell, if anything that's where the button should go. If someone wants to create a draft, they should be using WP:WIZARD. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see how someone (especially a newbie) may click the button initially to fiddle around with the functions of the editor, and then develop on the same page to make something more concrete. I can sympathise someone who found a way of creating a page may stick with that vs dig out WP:WIZARD. But maybe we can add to the preload something like "Click here when you're ready to create an article." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What this highlights for me is just how much pent up demand there is from low-competence editors to create pages. We have intentionally decided in the past not to link Help:Your first page from the left sidebar, the main page, etc., because we want people to first learn at least the very basics of editing so that they're slightly less likely to create a junk page that's rejected. The consequence of that, though, is that the inevitable group of IPs with the "just click through all the annoying instructions" mentality are ending up at H:ITW, bypassing the quite prominent "create account" button that appears to unregistered users above the sandbox links, and ending up creating the drafts we're encountering here (those who do create an account are instead directed to a sandbox in their userspace).

These sandboxes are designed to show the basics of wikimarkup, not for people to start drafting a page, since the people encountering these are not yet ready to make pages; adding a {{Submit}} button would just overwhelm the AfC folks, who are quite overwhelmed enough as is. I've added the line It may be deleted after a period of inactivity; please do not use it to draft an article or create anything else you wish to last. to help reinforce the point and give us easier justification for deleting them. As for using WP:Sandbox instead, I don't know of any way we could do that while retaining the functionality of preloading interesting example markup (it'd require the ability to make a link that clears out the existing content of a page and replaces it with a preload, and I think that's currently impossible). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted about 8 or 9 of these "sample pages" and they have all been gibberish, there has been no attempt to create an article. The editors are clearly testing out editing as if the pages were sandboxes, not draft articles. I don't think a link should lead to the creation of these pages for new editors but it's not a huge problem, I see 3 or 4 sample pages a week. But still it's an odd choice to invite the editor to create a sample page rather than sending them to the Sandbox or to their own sandbox but I guess I understand with Sdkb's explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As I recall these pages are the result of editors without accounts (IP editors) following whichever tutorial it is that has this link. Editors with accounts are directed to their own sandbox, but IP editors don't have sandboxes (or maybe this is because a certain magic word doesn't work for IPs so the template can't populate). Maybe they should be directed to the general Wikipedia:Sandbox instead? They can learn the basics of wikimarkup there, and a bot already cleans up that page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Given how infrequently these appear, establishing any formal policy/guidelines just reeks of WP:CREEP. Legitimately abandoned pages can be deleted via WP:CSD#G2/WP:CSD#G13, but I'm skeptical it's a good use of anyone's time to suss these out on a (semi-)regular basis. -FASTILY 00:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Simplify archiving at ANI

We currently have a number of problems at AN, primarily ANI that I feel could be mitigated:

1. Because of the number and size of cases, the page requires a tremendous amount of time from admins and anyone else who wants to assist. (Right now, e.g., the page contains about 47,000 words, which take more than 5 hours just reading time.)
2. The size also creates other problems – see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Page size
3. Partly in an attempt to address #1 and #2, we employ a multitude of ways to archive the page. This causes more work than necessary and even makes closing counterproductive. All of this also reduces transparency, which is a problem, given that many users come here after experiences of frustration and mistrust.

These problems should be mitigated with the suggestion proposed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Archiving only closed threads on ANI. ◅ Sebastian 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Strange page

Any ideas what Template talk:Badtitle/ApiErrorFormatter::getDummyTitle is? It could be speedied but how are people finding it? Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the page, but editors are probably using quarry: with sql like this -FASTILY 02:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The edits seem more typical of new users though. Maybe ask at the technical village pump? Graham87 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena RfC

I'm requesting that this RfC at Talk:Kiki Camarena be re-closed. S Marshall's close stated that this text [26] did not have consensus for inclusion at Kiki Camarena; the close ignored available reliable sources and directly contradicted a clear RfC consensus:

1. . WP:CONSENSUS - 6 out of 9 editors argued that the text should be included in the article body and lead, and 5 out of 6 non-involved editors argued the same.
2. . Editors arguing for inclusion noted that WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously" (e.g. [27][28][29][30]), and that arguments against inclusion were based on WP:OR.

S Marshall ignored both media and academic sources, and the consensus of editor arguments, in his close, effectively using the close as a supervote. He has acknowledged that his close opposed the editorial judgement of the community contributing to the RfC on his talk page: "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved" [31]. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse Close The closer ruled, in several cases in question 2, lack of a consensus in support of an edit which is qualitatively different than a consensus against said edit; it seems consistent with the flow of discussion, and consideration of some include !votes which were more or less WP:VAGUEWAVEs. The closer's Talk page comment is ambiguous and could be interpreted in several ways; I don't think it's a smoking gun of supervoting. (Also, on the matter of question #3 I'm not getting the same numbers as the challenger; by my count, only three of nine editors explicitly supported adding text to the lead.) That said, the closer's judgment on Q4 seems to be on a question that wasn't asked in the RfC and didn't naturally emerge in discussion. However, it appears simply to be the editor's personal advice for next steps. Finally, the editor's decision on Question 1 doesn't appear to be in dispute by the challenger. Chetsford (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC); edited 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This is at least the third time a close by S Marshall has been brought here for review since June. Both previous reviews resulted in overturns (see here and here) after consensus developed that SM supervoted in his close. Based on my initial reading of this new discussion, that appears to be the case once again. -- Calidum 04:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• In fact, if you examine User:S Marshall/RfC close log and its archives, you'll see that my closes have been reviewed many times on the admininistrator's noticeboard since 2014, and on the vast majority of occasions, I've been resoundingly endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: Darouet misrepresents what I said on my talk page, he misrepresents my close, and he totally misrepresents the arithmetic. Chetsford has it right.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The RfC was a simple one: "Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least, [32] and based on these sources?" The link that explains "this text at least" includes lead text that summarizes the issue. Fully six editors asked to "include" the text, and only a tortured distortion of their comments can argue that these "include" votes implied inclusion of some of the text, but not other parts.
  • As I already stated, 5 out of 6 non-involved editors endorsed inclusion.
  • S Marshall, as to your own comment on your talk page - what did you mean when you wrote "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved", other than that you disagreed with the editorial judgements of editors commenting on the RfC? At best Chetsford states your comment "is ambiguous," and you've offered no other interpretation. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not the numbers at all, Darouet. Don't count the words in bold: read. In fact that was a near-unanimous consensus to include the disputed information. When closing I observed that all the editors who said "include" were talking about the principle of including it. None of the editors who said "Oppose as written" were opposed to including it -- their objections were to your specific wording. And that's why my first finding was to include the disputed information.
      However, in that whole discussion, the only editor who supported your exact wording was you, and there was substantial and well-argued opposition to it. For this reason, in my finding #2, you are required to engage with the opposing editors and find a wording that includes the disputed information while respecting their well-founded concerns.
      And what I meant by my other remark is that I hope editors in this close review display better editorial judgment than in other recent disputes. I don't mind being overturned by the community: it's happened to everyone who's got any business closing discussions of this kind. But I dislike being overturned by people who've !voted without reading, understanding and reflecting on the disputed discussion, as has happened to me several times of late.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      So in your view, the editors who wrote "oppose as written" supported including the section but not as written by the proposer, and the editors who wrote "include" also supported including the section but not as written by the proposer? Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      • Levivich summarizes the absurdity of the close perfectly - editors supporting inclusion by a 2:1 margin are worse than ignored - their comments and reasoning are reversed. It’s a catch-22. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Let me break down my reasoning in more detail for you, Levivich.

1. Darouet writes an RfC in which he proposes to include six (6) paragraphs about alleged CIA complicity in the torture and murder of an American citizen.
2. Half a dozen editors support him.
3. Three editors pop up to oppose the specific wording that Darouet proposes. The concerns about wording are generally expressed late in the debate.
4. A large discussion ensues, with Darouet participating very heavily indeed, but little input from his previous supporters.

So I arrive and ask myself how to close it. Noting point (1), I decide to close it with utmost caution. Noting point (2), I close it in favour of including the disputed information. Noting points (3) and (4), I decide that although the disputed information may be included, the specific wording Darouet proposes doesn't enjoy consensus support and must be tweaked in consultation with the opposers, so as to take account of their concerns. Then I write this up as an RfC close and supply a few ancillary directions which are meant to enable Darouet to add the disputed information without having to go to a second RfC about exact wording.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks a lot simpler to me: an edit was proposed, and six editors were in favor of the edit while three were in favor of including the content in some form but not as written. There was no policy-based reason to discount the !votes of those who supported making the edit. That's consensus to include. Overturn to "include". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What is required to close an RfC in favor of a minority?

@S Marshall: your reasoning behind closing in support of "three editors" instead of "half a dozen" relies on what you characterize as later, well-reasoned RfC comments by a minority in the discussion. This is not an accurate reflection of the RfC outcome or talk page history: two of the three editors you side with in the RfC had already spent years [33][34][35] arguing against various versions of the text in question [36], which is what necessitated the RfC [37] in the first place. Non-involved editors supported inclusion of the text by a 5:1 margin (five [38][39][40][41][42] vs 1 [43]), and pointed out that the two editors objecting to the text based their arguments upon WP:OR objections to the reliability of all available academic sources.

1. Allegations of CIA involvement in Camarena's death were added to the article in 2013, when a number of former colleagues and agents began speaking to the press on the issue [44].
2. Those allegations remained in the article until exactly two years ago, when they were removed [45].
3. At that time I disputed the removal and looked into academic writing on the topic, where I found that multiple historians and regional specialists endorsed the allegations as likely true [46]. I re-wrote the content to fit with what historians have to say on the matter.
4. After nearly two years of talk page argument over whether ordinarily reliable sources can be reliable in this case [47] and having to deal with endless IP proxying or sockpuppetry [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57], I launched an RfC to just resolve the issue once and for all.
5. Uninvolved editors supported including the well-referenced text by a 5:1 margin.
6. S Marshall, closing the RfC, sides entirely with two involved editors who commented at the end of the RfC, and who had opposed the addition of the content for years prior to the RfC being held.

Contrary to Marshall's statement, those uninvolved editors who supported inclusion gave very strong arguments for keeping the disputed text. For example see this excellent comment [58], pointing out that no academic sources can be found disputing the allegations:

Include Certainly this information sourced to the Bartley/Bartley book and some of the commentaries in journals should be included in the body and in the lead. Particularly the favourable review by Vanessa Freije, which specifically endorses the evidence on Camarena and interpretation presented by the Bartleys, that was published in The Hispanic American Historical Review. Alongside the Journal of Latin American Studies and the LAP it is the preeminent English-language journal in the field, and cannot simply be disregarded. It is important that the information is presented, as the Bartleys do, as circumstantial but nevertheless compelling. To those others arguing at great (!!) length against inclusion: if you wish to dispute the articles supporting the Bartleys' findings you are welcome to submit an article for publication to either of the aforementioned journals or any of several other excellent scholarly publications. But WP Talk pages are not the place for your research and rambling cant on a subject in which you evidently have little expertise. See here. My only caveat would be that Freije's support for Bartley should also be cited.

Of course, I have no undying commitment to the text specifically as written. But after two years of arguing about it and receiving clear RfC support, it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I wish that S Marshall had understood the talk page history before overturning the RfC outcome, or had carefully read the RfC comments and consulted the works of professional historians and regional specialists who remain, after two years of disagreement, totally absent from Kiki Camarena. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Darouet, perhaps you can enlighten me: why did you disregard the close for some months, during which time you were actively editing, and then suddenly start posting colossal screeds about it on AN during the holiday period?—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I was teaching during the semester, and didn’t want to go to AN until the semester ended. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for saying that it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I now understand that this is your actual problem with the close, isn't it? You don't want to have to negotiate with them because you don't expect them to compromise?—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC was held after over a year of negotiations led to no resolution. Thank goodness at least that RfC editor comments so overwhelmingly supported available scholarship. I suggest that you consult that - this is, after all, an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the RfC I gather that multiple editors supported inclusion on the basis of strong sourcing, then one comment came in refuting the sourcing as weak (which, honestly, reviewing the sourcing this seems accurate), and finally 2 comments implying they're open to mentioning it, but that it should be balanced with refutations of these claims. That seems to be the overall consensus: supporting inclusion of the point itself, but not necessarily the exact text proposed, and it should be balanced with sources refuting this CIA theory.

Comparing this to SM's close: I agree with Q/A #1 and #2, I think #3 was unclear / no discernible consensus. I'm not sure about QA #4 (cannot work on it in the live article), but this is a relatively minor point. I agree with the substance of the close; endorse close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Luxofluxo unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Luxofluxo (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction and a topic ban from European Schools. These restrictions may be appealed on-wiki after 6 months. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Luxofluxo unblocked

Request for page protection

• COVID-19 pandemic in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Extended confirmed protection: Page is subjected to disruptive editing that includes addition of misinformation and un encyclopedic materials. 2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that happening right now on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Liz because it was extended protected and protection has expired. Recently a lot of material was removed due to being non encyclopedic thanks to AmandaNP for the cleanup. 2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B: per WP:PREEMPT, pages cannot be protected preemptively. 36.76.232.198 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about files

Hello. I need some help with the two files I uploaded yesterday. After receiving warnings from MifterBot, I followed the instructions, declared myself as the creator of the files as I took them with my phone's camera feature, and released them to public domain. Does anything else need to be done with these files before they are here to stay? 302 Views (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The file pages are still a bit sketchy; the copyright tags are there, but that's it. Using the {{Information}} template provides all required ... well, information . Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandals turning quality article into a stub

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

---

Hello. We are a group of four mother and former foster care youth who have tried to make some very important edits about child deaths, kids being beaten, and physical and sexual abuse in a state care system in Rhode Island. These stories have been all over the news. And we are scared that they are hiding the truth by deleting the sources and stories. This is very serious and it is documented by local and national news very reliable sources. Somehow our edit are met with anger and laughs. We need some help as no one will stop these bad editors and anyone who disagrees with them is instantly called a “sock puppet” and they are banned. There are editors who are making unwise edits here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_Department_of_Children,_Youth_%26_Families

When we tried to edit and reflect the truth of the DCYF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhode_Island_Department_of_Children,_Youth_%26_Families&oldid=997627374

I have tried to balance the article with national and local news sources from previous edits but these two or three editors keep reverting it including User:ProcrastinatingReader. Please, take a moment to review our edits and see why they may be valuable to the article. The talk page did nothing for another user and my friend was just called a “sock puppet” of another user who tried to show the truth on DCYf, when we have nothing to do with her/him. It seems like anyone who edits this article or anyone who tries to reform that system is not wanted on Wikipedia. That’s not what I thought Wikipedia was about. Anyway, if an admin could stop the vandalism I would be over the moon. People can make edits with reliable sources about Trump, about Celebrities, about politicians, about groups and churches, Boy Scout abuse, church abuse, Scientology abuse. Why does a state agency get special treatment when they are constantly in the news for hurting or nearly killing kids? Yakuza9 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You are a group of people, you say? And you are here to right great wrongs? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by Primefac - sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Requested unnecessary page move rollback

The Superior (film) page was arbitrarily moved to Draft:Superior (film) by a novice user. The film has already been completed so it is not necessary to do this, this is only done when the film is not yet in the shooting phase. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. In the future please use WP:RM/TR. In any case, please let the user know that the move was wrong, per the relevant guideline. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Avengeramb333

They literally spend all of their time deleting canonly gay characters and erasing their partners just to be homophobic. The main edits they make are of castiel and dean’s wiki pages. But I can’t edit it back because it’s “protected against vandalism.” Like no it’s being vandalized by a homophobe. Actions need to be taken. This shouldn’t be tolerated. I’ve had enough of the straights try erasing my existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.24.90 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

At a glance this looks like a run of the mill content dispute with fanon vs. cited content; the OP (who seems to have since made an account) has continued casting aspersions at Avengeramb333's talk page - where they did not notify them of this discussion as is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is Avengeramb333 responding. As Bushranger pointed out this is the run of the mill content dispute with fanon vs. cited content. I'm thankful that User:The Bushranger has notified me about this for I was not notified by the complainant as required. I would like to point out that I am not a homophobe as this person claims me to be. I'm just following the facts about certain fictional characters according to the content they originated from and not the fanfiction. (I would also like to point out that personally I do not like being labelled or my sexuality assumed by people who do not know me.)