Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schazjmd (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 2 March 2021 (→‎AP2 topic ban imposed (AE): support 6-month ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 0 40 0 40
    TfD 0 1 15 0 16
    MfD 0 0 7 0 7
    FfD 0 0 4 0 4
    RfD 0 0 68 0 68
    AfD 0 0 4 0 4

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (22 out of 8323 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Lehi Street bombing 2024-09-01 19:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    User talk:Magnolia677 2024-08-31 22:32 2024-09-10 22:32 edit,move Acroterion
    Draft:Terminator (fanfic) 2024-08-31 21:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Just Step Sideways
    Sergey Lavrov 2024-08-31 20:50 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Oleksii Mes 2024-08-31 20:46 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Pepe Julian Onziema 2024-08-31 03:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case
    Bryant & Stratton College 2024-08-31 01:06 2025-08-31 01:06 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts, long-term issue, possible gaming going on Just Step Sideways
    Dhahar 2024-08-30 22:26 2026-08-30 22:26 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    Jordan Raskopoulos 2024-08-30 21:39 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    2024 Red Sea oil spill 2024-08-30 21:30 2025-08-30 21:30 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter
    Kurdistan Region 2024-08-30 18:45 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/KURD enforcement; topic is under an extended-confirmed restriction Firefangledfeathers
    Ranjith (director) 2024-08-30 13:43 2024-09-13 13:43 edit,move Persistent vandalism Jake Wartenberg
    Qing dynasty 2024-08-30 02:36 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: given recent edits to the talk page by an autoconfirmed sock belong to the same sock farm, ECP is still necessary here Sir Sputnik
    Rajbhar 2024-08-30 02:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Anousone Xaypanya 2024-08-30 00:19 2024-09-30 00:19 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Talk:Usuário(a):Luhend 2024-08-29 05:10 2024-09-05 05:10 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Palestinian traditional costumes 2024-08-28 23:23 2025-02-28 23:23 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Somali Civil War 2024-08-28 23:21 2024-09-04 23:21 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    User:Dennis Brown/WMF 2024-08-28 23:20 indefinite edit,move Dennis Brown
    2024 Israeli military operation in the northern West Bank 2024-08-28 20:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Draft:Kedarkheda 2024-08-28 20:23 2024-09-28 20:23 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Rescue of Qaid Farhan Al-Qadi 2024-08-28 20:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case

    Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again

    This particular topic has been plagued with SPAs and POV pushing, the main one was recently topic banned, unbanned and rebanned (see: WP:GS/COVID19), and discussed at AN/ANI a few times. This is a long discredited conspiracy theory by consensus of scientists and all peer-reviewed publications, and most recently by the WHO. The SPAs are mostly relying on regular preprints published by two authors, Rossana Segreto & Yuri Deigin (such as this). It's all based on crappy sourcing (eg preprints & WP:OPINDIA [1]) and misrepresentations of existing sources. Today this tweet was published referencing the POVFORK page, which may explain the recent influx of newly created SPAs trying to push the theory, but they've been pretty relentless for months anyway.

    There is an active GS in the topic. Can we get some administrative action here? This stuff is beyond tiring now. As soon as lengthy meaningless walls of text are debated on one talk page, folks move on to the next talk page and restart the conversation from scratch, or create new fringe articles. This isn't a legitimate content debate. It's just disruptive and tiring contributors out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't have much time for paperwork at the moment, but I'm inclined to slap some sourcing restrictions on these pages as discretionary sanctions, and keep an eye on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis for a couple days in case the edit war returns. I'm just not sure how much that would help since the primary issue is talk page bludgeoning. That's best dealt with by topic bans, but I don't really know the topic area that well, so if you want tbans handed out I recommend taking some time to present some representative diffs here or at WP:AE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: I think sourcing restrictions would be helpful, for sure. There was, and still is, an effort on various noticeboards to get an opinion that MEDRS doesn't apply and/or that preprints and opinion pieces are as valuable as peer-reviewed pieces and scientist commentary. Such a sourcing restriction on the affected pages, along the lines of valereee's or Poland, would provide support to editors and slow down the overwhelming rate of talk page fluff and forum shopping. There's also a discussion at ANI currently re a particular editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    lol on Valereee's source restriction. My claim to fame. Given that it's currently at ArbCom, I'd say @Wugapodes would def be the better person to place it on those pages while I await my fate. Or doom, whichever. :D —valereee (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the issue with the Segreto paper isn't that it isn't peer-reviewed (it's been published), but that it's a primary source. Another MEDRS concern is the astounding lack of credentials of the authors and apparent lack of editorial oversight in the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series, which the Segreto and Sirotkin papers appear under. JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RandomCanadian, thank you very much for the trust expressed by this single ping.
    Per WP:GS/COVID19:
    Additionally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has been semi-protected for a month because of reasonable concerns about canvassing.
    This can probably be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much ToBeFree. This should aid with a bunch of the disruption, but I'm not sure all of it as some ECP users are responsible for some of the lengthier disruption, for example at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. I still think ideally a solution should be devised for that, otherwise it'll almost certainly flare up again once this thread is archived. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Billybostickson had not been formally notified about the sanctions in this area, so I have replaced the sanction and the block by a warning with a proper notification. I had seen a {{GS/alert}} regarding these sanctions on User talk:PaleoNeonate and User talk:Hemiauchenia, but Billybostickson hadn't received one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on something else

    I would like to thank User: SQLfor removing the block and ban which ~ ToBeFree used to unjustly (in my opinion of course) gag me at the behest of User: Random Canadian. However, I would also like to thank ~ ToBeFree for remedying the mistake and attempting to provide a relatively coherent justification and for answering my 6 questions about the block and ban. After a friendly discussion with ~ ToBeFree and in line with his advice I would like to add again what he deleted twice on this page (my response to a false claim by User: RandomCanadian and User: PaleoNeonate:

    And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:

    "I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

    (You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

    Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that.

    Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish, but please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text.

    To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

    Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

    Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:

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

    Thanks to any admin who has read this response, hopefully we can now move on and ensure that a quite plausible "lab leak hypothesis" is not falsely conflated with bio-weapon allegations, which is the current state of affairs and the reason for some of the disputes on the Covid-19 origin pages. I understand it is hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff and trying to ensure the WP pages are neutral and factual. My respect for that work you do. Billybostickson (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Billybostickson: I didn't remove anything. ToBeFree undid the block that they had made, and as such, I closed out your unblock request. I haven't read anything associated with that block, and because of that, I have no opinion on it. SQLQuery me! 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if copying the above here was appropriate but would just like to clarify that I don't have anything to add and don't think it's necessary to defend my previous complaint. Thanks to ToBeFree for their advice at Billy's page and for the page protections. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the wall of text above should be collapsed or otherwise clerked, as it doesn't really further the discussion at all and seems to be an assorted mixture of grievances. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for clarifying that ToBeFree, my mistake. I will ignore the arrogant response by Paleo I disagree with ProcrastinatingReader who seems to be attempting to suffocate a justified response to false claims by disparaging them instead of allowing them to be visible so that we all can learn from our errors.Billybostickson (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Just saying before anyone notifies me, I have seen the above message and chose to do nothing. The current heat is fueled by an incorrect block. No, there was neither arrogance nor disparagement involved in these messages. People disagree with each other, that's all.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what "error" you're talking about. Afaics ToBeFree unbanned you due to bureaucratic requirements ({{gs/alert}}), not because the merits of the ban were wrong. Your first action since is to post this, which is another wall of text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional user space copies

    <humour>Phew I'm not an admin yet or I'd be blocking the wrong guys all over</humour> Yes, clearly, my bad. Anyway, the point I made above about whack-a-mole copies of the draft stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DRN thread

    Comment about DRN

    Editors sometimes open threads at DRN about disputes that are already also being discussed in another forum. They may, in good faith, think that DRN has a more extensive scope than it does. Sometimes they are being evasive or are wikilawyering. The DRN volunteers close such disputes if we notice that the matter is pending somewhere else. This was a relatively easy close, because the the filing party was blocked shortly after filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So: Please be aware that forum shopping is disapproved of, and you are encouraged to bring content disputes to DRN that are not pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Off Wiki Recruitment

    There has been discussion of related Wikipedia articles by pro "lab leak" conspiracy theorists on twitter, which has likely resulted in the recruitment of new and dormant pro-"lab leak" editors to talk pages and related discussions, see [2] for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be a someone covertly canvassing editors via email who have expressed favourable opinions in the past year to vote keep on the MfD. See Special:Diff/1006867793/1006871631. Seriously problematic. Which also explains for the rise in keep voters of late, some of which haven't edited for months prior to the MfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ProcrastinatingReader Reported the blatant infringement at ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Spoiler Alert: It was ScrupulousScribe, who has been blocked for two months as a result. We would probably have never figured out the exact user unless the guy who admitted being emailed revealed who it was. Can someone make a section on the MfD to let the closer know about this? As it is likely to get lost in the walls of text otherwise (I have been asked to not make any further edits to the MfC discussion, and I will respect this). Also, there's nothing stopping ScrupulousScribe creating another dummy account and using it to continue to covertly canvass users via email undetected.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Account creation should be disabled per the block log, unless he has a dynamic IP (but that would be block evasion, and let's not immediately go down the path of WP:ABF - they might be misguided/problematic, but let's hope they're not that kind of problematic). As nominator, I'll post an additional additional notice under the existing ones at the top. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ProcrastinatingReader, slightly off topic but might I recommend changing that link to Special:Diff/1006869407/1006871631? Your current link covers a few revisions too many which make it seem like you're the canvassed editor at first glance Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    note: an RfC has been started at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all. Given the sheer amount of SPAs and offwiki recruitment on the MfD and in general, it's possible that the RfC may see the same sort of issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If my spidey sense is anything to go by, we're already seeing it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This (posted this afternoon) is egregious and well beyond the pale, particularly as it seems to target specific editors (myself included). I'd have removed the offending comment here (since it's strictly not related to the discussion) but obviously I'm better not doing that, especially since the original poster is stubborn about it. @Barkeep49: (or ArbCom in general, you happened to be first on the list) Is there anything that can be done about this kind of off-wiki behaviour, or are we stuck here waiting for these NOTHERE nuisances to show themselves? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is rather long and my attention occupied in other ways. However, my quickread of this situation is that it's not in ArbCom's remit at the moment as there isn't offwiki evidence that needs to be considered about specific editors. It seems like there might be bog standard administrative actions available here (i.e. doing some extended confirmed protection to thwart newly registered accounts) and since you're already at AN - which some administrators might see it - hopefully you'll get some assistance. Feel free either by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page with a concise summary if I've gotten this wrong. Just a note that I am on the lookout for someone to get elected to ArbCom next year who will appear before me alphabetically because I seem to be first on the list for many people. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally it's fine to delete WP:NOTFORUM and WP:PA style posts (WP:TPG), except sometimes if other editors answered, remains to determine if it's really in the "Removing harmful posts" category (I don't really care if it remains, it at the same time exposes them)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban or NOTHERE block for Dinglelingy

    Their activity on Wikipedia has only been to promote specific sources and views on COVID-19. Behavior has also been suboptimal including accusations and WP:WIKILAWYERING, this despite previous warnings. They've been warned about WP:PA/WP:FOC and WP:SPA/WP:HERE by myself here (it wasn't the first behavioral issue but it was after I noticed this uncalled-for comment). Warned again by Doug Weller here after accusing editors at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. They've already received the GS alert for COVID-19 in January from El C here. Despite these they are keeping up, now at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation like: 1, 2. It may be time for the unevitable... —PaleoNeonate – 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It seems there is something unsavoury happening here. So Dinglethingy (a likely sock and/or WP:SCRUTINY-avoiding returning user of some kind, judging by their edit history) writes[3] a diatribes prominently naming several editors. This then gets screenshotted and posted on twitter by a "lab leak" proponent[4] and subsequently there is a call to arms suggesting the proponents create "the GameStop of lab leak".[5] It would be good if an admin could untangle what's going on. And it would be good if Wikipedia does not become the attempted venue for the "GameStop of Lab leak". Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user known here as BillyBostickson is also back at it (after having earlier made their account private). And yes the call to arms is very worrying. Although we can't directly link any user here to a twitter handle (except the previous); I'd say that overall, this constitutes a sign of clear complicity in an attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. I support both options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "PaleoNaziNate & Random Canadian Kapo" bahahahaha clearly he is very mad, at least ScrupulousScribe was civil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "PaleoNaziNate"??! When "PaleoNeoNazi" is just right there?! (No shade to PaleoNeonate, of course). JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody with a Twitter account should ideally report the offender for abusive behaviour (I've reported the matter to ArbCom here); though I don't know if our definition of "abusive behaviour" is more stringent than that of social media platforms (probably). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: BillyBostickson has been indefinitely blocked by the arbitration committee, likely thanks to your complaints. Well deserved, in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice

    In case anybody was following here but not on the subpage, there's a thread at AN/I; just here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User potentially adding copyvio to various articles

    TheTransportHub (talk · contribs) - has been adding paragraphs of info to various UK railway related articles. However, they appear to be copied from the sources they are citing. The user mainly cites magazines and websites needing registration so it is not possible to check using Earwig. SK2242 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC) (edited SK2242 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

    Blocked WHEELER

    I was in two minds about posting this - if I'd seen this behaviour, and this userpage, from a new account I'd have blocked and moved on without looking back. However, given that this is an account that's 18 years old, with thousands of edits, I thought I should pay the community the courtesy of letting them know that I have indefinitely blocked WHEELER for not being here to build an encyclopaedia. I made this decision based on their most recent edits, the content of their userpage, and a skim through their last three years of editing, which were almost exclusively to that userpage, which fell foul of several of our most basic policies.

    I'm not asking for a review of this block - I am entirely confident that this was in the interests of the project, and Muboshgu, who also noticed their latest editing, came to the same conclusion. This is a courtesy notification to anyone with a longer institutional memory than I have, who may have known WHEELER in the past. The recent concerning edit has been revdelled by Muboshgu, and I have deleted the userpage. Best GirthSummit (blether) 22:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Girth Summit, bringing it up here was a good idea. I also was much more cautious in how I handled this account based solely on the account's age and opted to ask a question with the idea of giving the person the rope to hang himself with, so to speak. WHEELER, based on their deleted user page and the revdel'd edit, is an avowed racist. Wikipedia is not tolerant of intolerance. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Long "institutional memory" representative here. While he has done some good work I completely understand the reason for this. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/List_of_Republics#WHEELER_banned for some of the history. After reading the revdelled comment, I approve of the block. Wikipedia isn't the right place for that POV. Antandrus (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've declined their unblock request and deleted a bunch of National Socialist and Goebbels-adjacent userspace webhost material. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A review of the articles they've created is illuminating [6]. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy Hegel and Mother Marx this user has some FRINGE and repugnant views. WP:ZT EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Thanks for doing this. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. I read most of that deleted user page, so many levels of bizarre fringe. One of the weirdest hecking things I've read in my whole life. That recent revdelled edit is also very messed up. Hog Farm Talk 06:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Great block, of course, per all above. Just a tiny nitpick though: the account is seventeen years old, not eighteen, because the time of the earliest edit in its contributions is wrong due to a clock reset; its diff should probably look something like this. I'm not happy though that one of the edits in my listing of these anomalies was made by a certified extreme racist. Also see a recent archived ANI thread also involving weird times in page histories. Graham87 08:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham87, that's very strange - does that erroneous timestamp also influence the creation date in the User log? GirthSummit (blether) 09:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Yes, it does, because account creation times weren't oficially recorded in the database until September 2005. Graham87 09:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. That's what I call serious institutional memory! GirthSummit (blether) 10:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I confess I wandered over to WHEELER's user page every now and again just to see if he'd quit/been blocked. That rev'd comment is far, far worse than anything I can remember seeing from him in the "old days". Good block; sorry it came to this. Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI closer needed

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XIIIfromTokyo

    I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look at this ANI section. It's been dragging on for a while, with lots of words and accusations. I just blocked the one editor for personal attacks, but this needs more eyes. It's a bit of a read, but something has to be done here. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a difficult case, but in my opinion something needs to be done, even if it is just s stern warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey look it's another backlog!

    Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention could use some admins clearing it out. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MJL: the non-actionable bot-reported names can be removed by anyone (e.g.). Consider taking a run at it and let me know if you have any questions about individual cases. –xenotalk 14:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xeno: I've removed quite a few and commented on others by now,[7][8][9][10][11] but there are a decent amount of pretty blatant username violations still in the bot-que. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot-flagging at UAA has gotten out of control. Like I can allot a solid hour to eliminating some massive bot-reported backlog, and when I log in the next morning the backlog is immediately back to an unmanageable level, largely made up of accounts that will never edit more than once or twice. It's become an unreasonable demand on an admin's noticeboard. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: It's possible for admins to adjust the blacklist. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but even as a UAA admin I don't know how to adjust the blacklist in the correct way. It's just clear whoever was updating the blacklist was too overzealous for too long and now we have out of control bot flagging. I'm not saying I have the solution, I'm just saying this is a problem with the blacklist, not with admins neglecting the board. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-admin, the problem is users like Sydneywhitey (talk · contribs) - not a case where a username block is really in order based on the name alone, but also based on their only edit being vandalism not a user that I want to ignore. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much this^. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User who has not communicated

    Spookyh17 (talk · contribs) - They’ve upload some unlicensed images and made unsourced edits. This is not a major problem, but they have not addressed this at all. Or addressed anything in fact. None of their 173 edits have an edit summary, and they have not made a single edit to any talk page or noticeboard. Is there any way to get them to communicate? SK2242 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @SK2242: I fear they may be using the iOS Wikipedia app, which doesn't show notifications even for logged-in editors. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the case. Is there a tag for app edits like there is for mobile web edits? SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe so, but I can test if necessary. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/Wilkja19
    I don't believe this is an app issue as the above user is an iOS app user and it's clearly documented in the edit logs. Slywriter (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh - I learned something new today (that iOS app edits are tagged). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no Special:Tags at the end of the edit, then the person is using the desktop site (not mobile), in a web browser (not app), in one of the old wikitext editors (not the visual editor, not the 2017 wikitext editor), and probably not using WP:AWB. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll probably just partial block them from article space with a request that they communicate, starting here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So I blocked indef from article space, to encourage dealing with the Community's concerns/prevent further disruption. As always, any admin can modify or remove as they see fit. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unban request: topic ban issued, without warning, based on WP:BLUDGEON

    AE APPEAL DECLINED
    No support for lifting the topic ban of User:Bavio the Benighted from Comfort women. Their ban appeal is declined. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was issued a topic ban, without prior warning, for six months on the basis that I was 'bludgeoning the process' on a talk page. This seemed excessive and inappropriate for several reasons, which I listed on the relevant section of my talk page, so I would like to ask other administrators to review the ban and, if deemed unnecessary, to reverse it.

    I was directed to this page by these instructions. If I should place my request elsewhere or if the decision should be appealed via some other route, please let me know. Thank you. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to elaborate a bit more regarding the reasons I feel the topic ban is premature:
    1. The ban was issued in relation to the alert you posted on my talk page. However, said alert explicitly encouraged discussing edits with other users---i.e. I was banned for following the instructions you gave me, Acroterion. I have stopped editing the main article after my second block, because I learned that it's unproductive, so my older blocks do not seem relevant in the context of the topic ban.
    2. The ban was issued without prior warning. All sanctions should at least involve one formal warning with clear instructions on how to avoid said sanction.
    3. The ban was issued even though I did not violate any official policy.
    4. The reason for the topic ban was that my edits were too long and too frequent, so a more rational course of action would be to impose a reasonable daily character limit to my edits regarding the topic.
    5. A 6 month ban seems more like an attempt to censor one side of the debate, something I recently suspected another administrator of. The content of the article currently reflects a one-sided view of the subject, and ignores much of the more recent literature contesting an older consensus (see e.g. the diff linked above, and the relevant section on the talk page). Yet many editors who frequent the topic are quick to dismiss all challenges to the old content, no matter how well-sourced or well-argumented. As such, it seems exceedingly likely that any outright bans on those users who express contrarian views will have a negative effect on the quality of article in question, in terms of WP:NPOV and historical accuracy.
    6. The topic ban was only issued to me, one-sidedly, despite other editors arguably exhibiting noticeably more disruptive behavior. For instance, an attempt to stifle on-going discussion by the removal of a [discuss] template from a strongly disputed lede, and the marking of this change as "minor", has remained unpenalized. As has the removal of sourced content citing a recent peer-reviewed article, despite said article being one of the most reliable among the sources we have on the topic (as I detailed here in a post that no one has yet challenged). I am not suggesting that these other users be sanctioned, but I am suggesting that my topic ban should logically only come after theirs, given that some of their actions seem to have been intentionally disruptive. Preferential banning of editors expressing contrarian views, regardless of the actual disruptiveness of their behavior, is not the way to go when building an encyclopedia. And this is especially true if said editors have consistently cited more reliable sources than other editors to corroborate their claims, and if said arguments have never been countered on the talk page.
    7. The main reason some of my posts have been long and repetitive is because I wrote them in reaction to repetitive points that I had already countered by other editors. Whenever other editors blatantly "forget" or misconstrue any of my previous arguments, I tend to try rephrasing them instead of linking to diffs, since I believe this way I have a higher chance of getting the other editor to understand my point of view.
    8. As I mentioned above, my posts tend to be long for a reason: they have more and longer citations, I tend to make a conscious effort to phrase my arguments as precisely and accurately as possible, and I try to argue my points as thoroughly as I can from different angles. All of these factors make my edits longer than those of others. I think these are examples of exemplary behavior, if anything, and certainly not a reason to ban someone from partaking in a discussion.
    As such, if my previous edits are indeed considered disruptive, I would like to suggest that a daily or weekly character limit is imposed to my edits to said topic. Or, alternatively, that the editors on the talk page in question be polled regarding whether or not they unanimously consider my participation in the discussion as disruptive. Based on the reasons listed above, an outright ban seems unjustified in this situation. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting this topic ban. The editor has been tendentious and disruptive in advocating for the fringe theory that the vast majority of the prostitutes who were exploited by the Japanese Imperial Army in military brothels during World War II volunteered for their exploitation. The editor sometimes uses the figure of 99.9%. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never "advocated" the notion that the majority had been voluntary prostitutes, a point I've repeated ad nauseam. I have said that many of them were "hired" (regardless of whether they were given a choice or not) and that they worked under "contracts" (again, not necessarily willingly). Both of these claims are supported by a recent peer-reviewed article[1] by Ramseyer. I have clarified my stance countless of times on the talk page---this type of misconstruing of my points by certain editors is exactly the reason my posts tend to be long and repetitive; if I fail to keep clarifying them ad nauseam, I have learned that some editors will keep "forgetting" or misconstruing them ad infinitum.
    I did make one provocative hyperbole (mentioned on my talk page) where I assert that "more than 99% likely worked voluntarily", and, in doing so, challenged another editor to find hard proof that more than 1% of the comfort women had been coerced (which, as I'm sure we can both agree, should be an easy task if it is indeed only a "fringe theory" that a significant fraction had worked voluntarily) but they were unable to do so, arguably proving my point. And no, I still do not consider it likely that the majority had worked in the brothels voluntarily; this notion is just as unsubstantiable as the current definition.
    And though I do not seem to have ever typed the number "99.9%", I assume you are referring to this quote: As of now, the Wikipedia article uncritically parrots the claims of a vocal minority amounting to 0.01% - 1% of all comfort women. But as you can see, here, I am referring to the number of testimonies, which, based on the data we have, have only been given by 0.01% - 1% of all comfort women. This number in itself is completely uncontroversial; I doubt you could find anyone who disagrees with that on the talk page.
    I recently made a long post that addresses all of this, but I suppose you did not have time to read it, which is understandable, given the length of the talk page. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting the ban per Cullen328; every single one of their edits since September 8, 2020 are related to this topic, and they seem to be a clear net negative in the area. They should find some other topics to edit for awhile, and if they're not interested in doing so, then they're an unwanted SPA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban. Established editors need assistance dealing with topics like this and volunteers should not need to drink from a firehose. Bavio started editing in March 2016 but since September 2020 appears to have done nothing but focus on comfort women (72% of their total 161 edits concern that topic). Unless they can gain experience working collaboratively in other areas their future editing is in doubt. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree my edits (and the edits of those editors who I've debated the topic with) have rendered the talk page overly long for volunteers to parse. This is why I would certainly contend with a character limit imposed on my future edits. I feel an outright ban would backfire, though, in that it would stifle discussion and create a warped view of the consensus. And, if the ban is lifted, I can attempt to remedy the situation by rewriting some of my older posts to make them more concise, since I do agree some of them are needlessly verbose, which might reduce their visibility (and explain why so many editors keep ignoring and misconstruing my points). Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bavio, I hope you take this in the constructive spirit in which it is offered--I take no position on the merits here; I have not looked in to them. I will say, to a casual onlooker, it looks like you are perilously close to "bludgeoning" the discussion of your bludgeoning ban. Just a word to the wise. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the warning, and yes, I'm trying to take it constructively. This thread made me realize that my arguments on the talk page, which were aimed at getting three specific editors to see my point, were too long and too roundabout, and not very outsider-friendly. I now know I should've prioritized brevity much more than I did, and that I should've been explicit about my stance instead of trying to use a hyperbole as proof, since this lead to the misunderstanding now perpetuated by Cullen. And I apologize for the long posts, but I do feel I should defend myself against false claims / ad hominems, especially if used as a basis for supporting the ban. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion. I have made no attempts to defend my case about the content here. If I had, I would have linked to recent diffs of my best proofs with ample citations, which I clearly did not do here, as anyone who is updated on the state of the relevant talk page can attest. What I did do was correct two obvious errors in Cullen's edit that amounted to slander.
    And if defending myself against slander is considered "bludgeoning" then surely I am obligated to do so in a thread discussing the legitimacy of a ban imposed on me. Cullen's post made it very clear that he or she only read a handful of posts on the talk page. Yet they expressed agreement with the ban based on a false assumption regarding my stance---despite it being absolutely obvious to anyone who reads >10% of my posts on the talk page that my stance has always been "the evidence does not support claim X", and that all edits I've made have been me proving this point from different angles. Certainly I should correct Cullen's glaring error, as otherwise I would be letting them poison the well.
    The only motive I've ever had for editing Wikipedia has been to fix glaring errors. You can see this in literally all my edits, including the ones in this thread. If you type something that is demonstrably false then you should expect me to call you out, like I did here. I've been like this since I was 6; it's an ingrained part of my personality and there's nothing I can do about it. And if you ignore or misinterpret my argument then you can expect me to double down and disprove your point from another angle. Cue bludgeoning.
    And I don't have any strong feelings regarding the subject itself, since history has never interested me. The only reason I became fixated on it is because this was the first topic I encountered where an editor reverted my changes without a valid rationale. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bavio the Benighted has accused me of the crime of slander, which appears to me to be a clear legal threat, especially since I disclose my real world identity. This seems to me an attempt (unsuccessful) to intimidate me from discussing this editor's misbehavior. If I was uninvolved, I would issue an indefinite block until the editor unambiguously withdrew the legal threat, or a court issued a final judgment. I request that an uninvolved administrator take a look and determine whether No legal threats applies here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I've lblocked Bavio the Benighted per Cullen's ANI request. El_C 06:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and I have unblocked, after a discussion on their talk page, setting out some conditions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Ramseyer, J. Mark. "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War". ScienceDirect. International Review of Law and Economics.
    • Oppose I think the need is pretty plain. Please see user's WP:NLT unblock request. TBH, I feel this user is just going to dig themselves in deeper as they do not seem to understand what they are doing wrong. And they even said, in their response to Girth Summit and others, I've been like this since I was 6; it's an ingrained part of my personality and there's nothing I can do about it. And if you ignore or misinterpret my argument then you can expect me to double down and disprove your point from another angle. (Sheesh) And then there's the slander thing. User needs to grow and learn to interact better, without "doubling down". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per pretty much everyone else. This editor needs to find another topic area to edit in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Talk:Comfort women is filled with enormous posts from this editor. Nor do they seem to be the constructive/useful kind, on the contrary they're defending a fringe theory, nitpicking ('I would never use the phrase "South Korean propaganda", and I did not do so here, either... I stated that the article as it is represents the narrative of "a South Korean propaganda machine") and arguing the article should be filled with original research. I don't see any good reason why the other editors on that article should be forced to put up with this, and our duty here is to them. Hut 8.5 12:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per all above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing/socking/suspicious behaviour at Martha Stewart

    Multiple similar edits by multiple new accounts/IPs in the last 24 hours. Needs protection and probably some investigation... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption and edit warring has been intense. I've semi-protected Martha Stewart for a month. This seems to be an off-Wikipedia racial justice campaign related to the recent release of Bobby Shmurda from prison. The reasoning is that if Shmurda's article labels him as a felon, then so too should Stewart's. At present, neither article uses the felon label prominently but both articles mention their criminal convictions in the second paragraphs of their respective leads. That seems fair. Nobody is discussing the matter at Talk: Martha Stewart. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: It appears you undid the protection straight away by accident?. Agent00x (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Seems fine to me. El_C 11:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Agent00x: I think the logs are confusing you. Cullen328 changed protection from indefinite PC1 i.e. anyone can edit but edits by non auto-confirmed editors (editors not using accounts or very new accounts) need to be approved by a PC reviewer before they show up in the revision normally visible; into 1 month semi-protection so non auto-confirmed editors cannot edit point blank. See WP:Protection policy and the linked pages for further info on how the various levels of protection work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it registers on the pending changes log rather than the protection log, but adding/resetting pc does show in the revision history. El_C 11:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you replying to someone else? I didn't say anything about any specific logs. The logs I imagine most editors look at are the revision history [12] and the general page logs [13] as these tend to be the easiest to navigate to. Both of these are potentially confusing to people who don't understand how protection works. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm someone else! Anyway, could be just that there was no pp tag due to MusikBot II not liking pc resets that are followed by protections, something I've already alerted MusikAnimal to a little while ago. El_C 12:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, yes, I was getting confused by the bot removing the icon and not replacing it with anything. Thanks. Agent00x (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were supposed to say: He's right! El_C 12:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

    Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

    Supporting: Barkeep49, Bradv, CaptainEek, Maxim, Worm That Turned

    For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot
    Now having "DYK that the DYKUpdateBot's account was compromised?" would make a great front-page DYK. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    enwiki Board consultation?

    Attending the office hours last weekend thanks to Nosebagbear's notification, the the WMF emphasized that they are willing to hold guided/moderated discussions about this topic with particular groups/communities. Is this something other editors of English Wikipedia would be interested in having? If so I think we can let the WMF know so a date/time could be found to do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Barkeep49: This is about the proposed changes to the WMF board? I don't think a lot of people here know about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes MJL. Thank you for providing that link. I had originally posted this on WP:VPWMF where it has been discussed a fair amount (and is indeed present in a couple topics now) and didn't adequately adjust for this audience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to copy across my comment on VPW, I would indeed encourage this to take place, should individuals be interested. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to review the close

    This is a request to review the close at Talk:List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone#Merger proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Talk:KOI-4878.01#Proposed merger. The first debate has been closed despite no consensus has been reached about merging it. The debate is taking place in two separate talkpages, and an editor has closed the debate in one of them perhaps without realizing that no overall consensus has been reached in both talkpages.

    The debate is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal
    @Trurle @Figuerai @Astronomyeditionwiki @Kepler-1229b and me (5 editors) are in favor of keeping it as it is now, and SevenSpheresCelestia, Lithopsian, Ardenau4, Headbomb, and Davidbuddy9 (5 editors) are in favor of merging it.
    Consensus has been reached to merge KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01, but not KOI-4878.01.
    After several months of debate, I would appreciate if an administrator properly closes the debate as consensus reached to merge all the pages except KOI-4878.01, and removes the 'merge' notice from the page.
    Thank you, cheers. ExoEditor 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request

    Please move Template:Editnotices/Page/List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1970s–2000s to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1960s–2000s. Reason for request: article title was changed to List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1960s–2000s, because section was added for 1960s. Thanks in advance, I don't have required permissions. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-requested block and the flag removal

    I recently was indefinitely topic-banned from "any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed" [14]. I looked at my contribution [15] and I think I can't find any areas outside of the topic ban where I can participate productively and with interest. Therefore, there is no prospect that the topic ban will ever be lifted. I think that in order to avoid stealing the account, it is better to block it. At the very least, I think you should remove my pending changes reviewer flag.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Permission error

    I got a permission, when I wanted to create a local description for File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpg. Could someone create the page with {{Featured picture|Falcon 9 Full Thrust}}? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 10:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. FYI it matched the first entry of "generic image file names" at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

    Several motions have been proposed on the Committee's public motions page relating to Case Workshops. These proposed motions change how Workshops are run and used, including making it optional. These motions will modify the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Editors are welcome and encouraged to make comments in the "Community discussion" sections for each motion. A running total of votes for each motion can be viewed in the implementation notes section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss the motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Case Workshops. Discuss this notice at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

    There has been a new proposal since this was first announced which would also omit workshops from some cases: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Timetable and case structure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AE understaffed by admins

    I have a distinct impression that WP:AE is currently significantly understaffed by admins and has beed so for a while. There are some threads there where only a single administrator has commented in the "Result" section for a week, while the sections with comments by others keep growing and getting more unwieldy. WP:AE cannot function effectively without sufficient admin participation and I encourage more admins to start taking part there. Currently, there is one admin, User:El_C, who actively participates in all threads. A few others participate from time to time. El_C certainly deserves significant credit for his hard work, but he can't carry the entire AE by himself. More help is definitely needed there. By the way, currently WP:AE is not listed at the top of WP:AN under open admin tasks, but perhaps it should be. Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again for the kind words, Nsk92. Most certainly, any additional assistance that will help lighten the load would be greatly appreciated! El_C 19:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Listing # of open AE threads in the admin backlog box might help. I also think the word limit should be more strictly enforced (not to a tyrannical extent, just more than current), to reduce the amount of reading patrolling admins have to do. ("Stay on topic" is probably more important to that than actual word count). Levivich harass/hound 20:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that one of the main reasons that I've asked users not to post any new requests on my talk page (User_talk:El_C#Destiny) is because WP:AE is simply taking up so much of my time, even if only to merely touch on the seemingly never-ending volume of these requests. As noted elsewhere recently, I've been attending to AE requests often almost-singlehandedly, which, for example, is reflected in AE/Archive277, where 11 of 14 complaints were closed (and largely attended to) by me — not including two appeals both involving my actions (both declined). Speaking of which, I'm at, like, what, 7 appeals now during the past month or so (all declined, as well), with 2 currently ongoing. El_C 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest, I took a quick look at WP:AE and though "I haven't the faintest idea how to handle that lot, and taking action would be broadly equivalent to a bull in a china shop". The only Arbcom case I could realistically manage is WP:ARBINFOBOX / WP:ARBINFOBOX2, and even then I'd proceed with caution. So I'm going to have to give it a miss, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AE seems to have relied on a few admins doing the bulk of work - before El C it was Sandstein. Not ideal as it leads to a increased risk of burnout.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't suppose we could force Floquenbeam to do it at gunpoint? I mean, sillier things have been suggested around here.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The power of the Floq compels you, the power of the Floq compels you! El_C 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, just need to adopt a remedy here, 'Floq is required to clear AE, stat' all those in favor, say aye. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Floq's currently taking a break; I think he would run a mile from AE right now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too bad. Unhappy face. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if all else fails, I may have no choice but to turn to Buck Flower, but he'd probably just engage in the usual Gooby-related spammage, as is his nature!¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 21:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that User:EdJohnston, User:Dennis Brown, and User:Black Kite used to be pretty regular at AE. I wonder if any of them would have the time or inclination? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to be "that guy" but I think what would be best for the community is if new admins, who haven't ever patrolled AE, gave it a spin. There are 500 active admin and I bet less than 20 have ever commented at AE. Levivich harass/hound 00:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with that notion is that AE does have a somewhat steep learning curve, so expecting new admins unfamiliar to just jump straight in to the deep end before even dipping their toes, then expecting that to produce the best outcomes — that seems unrealistic, to me. Anyway, I admit that I am curious to see what would happen if I were to just leave the AE noticeboard to its own devices. So, I think I'll do that by avoiding it for the next while. I'd rather be editing articles about Israeli poets than AE-ing away, anyway, I just try to go to where the need is greatest. So, Good Night, and Good Luck. And let's hope it all works out for the best. Fingers crossed. El_C 00:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident our crop of active admins can master the steep learning curve, as many have done before them. :-) How to convince anyone to volunteer for this, per the bear below, is another story altogether. Levivich harass/hound 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they can, but, again, probably not in one-fell-swoop, as you propose. But doesn't really matter. I'm sure it'll all work out in the end. Necessity is a great motivator, after all. El_C 06:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not one fell swoop: a comment from an admin on one case a week or a month will give us a diversity of opinions on the reports, e.g. "is this edit warring?" "is this uncivil?" "where is the ONUS?" etc., and doesn't put too much on any one admin. Thanks, C, for holding down the fort there, and also to the other admins who have commented there recently. Levivich harass/hound 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally. Happy to have helped. Indeed, the more, the better, so, from your mouth to God's ears, Levivich. Lord knows I could use the rest! El_C 07:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • AE struggles as an area as it is has the unholy trifecta of discouraging admins: 1) technically difficult 2) inherently hostile/dramatic 3) is a field that a significant portion of admins have major ideological disagreements/concerns with either the concept, or the execution. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and I'm part of 3) now. I found that AE works well in the daily business of banning or blocking ethno-nationalist POV warriors, but it falls short when discretionary sanctions or even individual ArbCom sanctions are to be enforced against the unblockables. Even though AE sanctions are supposed to be protected against being undone by an angry mob, in practice that's what often happens because in my experience ArbCom does not back up enforcing admins in such circumstances, leaving them to be dragged from dramaboard to dramaboard. That's why I now leave ArbCom enforcement to ArbCom itself. Sandstein 10:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being an AE admin is not for the faint at heart --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read all the cases through and I do not feel able to get involved: it is too complex. With AE relying on perhaps now only one admin who is in the know of the mechanism and history of the disputes and who has now understandably taken a step back, is this process even viable? Fences&Windows 12:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, many cases are complex. How to analyze such content, make it simple and separate noise? Here is the approach that one admin used. Focus on the first diff (in each #1, #2, etc. segment) brought by the complaining user, without actually looking at other things. Does that single diff by itself clearly demonstrates a behavior problem, rather than merely a content dispute? If it does, and especially if there are several such diffs, then the case has merit. Basically, when imposing a sanction, an admin can say: "I blocked/topic banned you for this [...],[...]". Such telling diffs frequently appear in final ArbCom rulings. However, if the diffs by the complainer do not clearly demonstrate the problem, then it may be a battleground request. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My advice: find some deserving non-admin, give them the tools as a reward for services above and beyond, and tell them they won't get paid until they clear out WP:AE. When they're done, take away the tools and yell "April Fools!" and dance around the maypole. Rinse and repeat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

    DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) is granted administrative permissions on the English Wikipedia following the securing of its passwords by the operator.

    For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 23:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

    Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

    A motion has modified the internal procedures of the Arbitration Committee. The motion was enacted after it reached majority support on the the committee's public motions page. The Arbitration Committee intend to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase. The committee also intends to make workshops optional, such as in cases where the conduct of one or two editors is being examined. The section which has been added to the procedures page reads:

    Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

    The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

    1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
    2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
    3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

    The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

    Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

    For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

    User:Hannah02130213

    Blocked for 24 hours. For future reference, WP:ANEW is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Community ban request for JaiMahadev aka Phoenix man

    JaiMahadev has already been blocked as a suspected sock of Phoenix man, and I suspect will soon be CU-confirmed. Based on this edit however, I think the community should also enact a formal ban. It won't make any practical difference, but it's the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ... Already banned per WP:3X. --Izno (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno, Not that I can see from the SPI tags. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Creation Error

    Page creation was blocked due to a filter set up after previous spam about another person called Dabliz. However, creating an autobio is not appropriate and I've added the appropriate welcome template to their user talk page. Fences&Windows 22:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hellos, Good Evening. I’m Dablizz Praise I want to create a page about myself, but I encountered an error and I was instructed to report the issue.. Below is what I wrote about myself

    Dablizz. Ibeole Praise Chinemerem known by his stage name Dablizz is a rapper and Afro-pop artist. Music Genre Rap, AfroPop, Afro Beat. He is the 4th son of Mr/Mrs Ibeole Joseph. Born on May 8 1998 Hails from Orlu Imo State, Nigeria. He released his first single titled LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dablizz1 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not Social media. Wikipedia does not exist to improve your name recognition or promote your brand. Wikipedia is not for autobiographies, even if you are notable. Wikipedians will create an article should you become notable and get coverage in reliable sources. In short, you have to achieve the fame before you get the article, not create an article to get famous. Probably not the answer you want, but it's the reality Slywriter (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Slywriter, Is the shouting really necessary? Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider emphasis of important words shouting but in deference to the concern, I have normal cased. Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Scope of 1-way IBAN: Query

    As suggested by the admin that has been most recently offering input into my IBAN (for the IBAN itself, see my Talk page); I am asking for a view on exactly what sort of thing your IBan covers, and also in particular concerning what the scope of BANEX point 2 is supposed to be. If anyone thinks the person I am ibanned from should be notified of this discussion, please do so, but I do not believe that to be a required notification that would be allowed in the terms of the ban. I will not be making any mention of that other editor or any of that editor's edits in this discussion, but of course they will be visible in some of the diffs I present; my understanding is that that is evidently covered in Banex point 2 (though the scope of BANEX is the second part of my question).

    Since the IBAN was enacted, there have been a few instances - particularly concerning Talk space rather than Article space - where the scope of the one-way IBAN has been unclear. The key phrase of WP:IBAN, as I understand it, is Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other and the key elements that are then noted are to edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions and make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. The first two of these seem fairly straightforward, but two admins that have commented on the third one have had what Girth Summit (GS) called slightly different takes.[16]

    For example, El C offered an interpretation, I'm not seeing where you have been addressed or mentioned by Newimpartial. They are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits and found no problem with my !vote on an issue. [17] Months later, in response to another inquiry, GS's take was that that same Talk page edit, and others that I had made in the meantime along the same logic, were (inadvertent) infractions [18]. When I asked GS about what I thought was a very cautious contribution, about a passage I had edited in the past, [19] he expressed his view that it was an IBAN violation,[20] so I reverted.[21] However, the interpretation El C had offered, that I could participate in content disputes so long as I did not reply to the other editor, interact with them in discussion or make reference to or comment on their edits, seemed more plausible to me and more in line with the goal of building an encyclopedia. But Girth Summit usually a fairly grounded individual, so I wanted to see what the broader sense from the Admin community actually is.

    The other issue that came up was specifically with reference to WP:BANEX point 2, concerning appeals. I tried twice with Girth Summit to appeal to have the 1-way IBAN converted into a 2-way ban (after El C, the original banning admin, gave his affirmative endorsement that it was appropriate to so).[22] The first time I offered a somewhat technical history of the sequence of events leading to and following the ban[23], which he had no problems with under BANEX 2 as far as I could tell, though he did object[24] to my followup comment[25] for reasons I did not understand at the time. After 10 days of additional developments I tried again, contrasting very recent developments with the ban's pre-history. [26] After some back-and-forth for clarification, GS finally got me to understand [27] that in his view, a post under BANEX point 2 can make reference to the editing of the other editor only concerning diffs that were directed at me and my editing in particular, and that identifying patterns connecting an editor's actions directed at me and those directed elsewhere (such as other editors or BLPs) is not allowed, even as part of a clarification or appeal. Is this the general view of the Admin community? I have looked everywhere I could think of, including the archives of this noticeboard, and could not find the basis for any such restriction. BANEX exempts Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum such as appealing the ban. I don't see any documentation relating to what GS called the commonly accepted interpretation that only very restricted evidence is allowed in such appeals. Obviously GS is not going to convert the 1-way ban into a 2-way (nor am I asking for that to be done here), but I would very much like to understand what the scope of my 1-way IBAN actually is.

    So my questions are:

    • must I avoid entering a talk page discussion in which the editor from whom I have been IBANned has previously commented or !voted (so long as so do not interact with their comment or !vote)?
    • must I avoid entering a talk page discussion about newly proposed article text, where some of that text would replace text previously edited by the person from whom I am IBANned (assuming that I do not comment on their contribution or text)?
    • in any future appeal made under BANEX, am I restricted to present only diffs that are drawn from direct commentary on me or my edits by the other editor, or can other evidence also be included?

    I would appreciate the views of the Admin community on these and any related matters. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC) missing word added Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just note that my position toward one-way IBANs (editor-to-editor, as opposed to editor-to-uninvolved admin) has largely been that the other party must also adhere to the IBAN as if it were a 2-way one. They just get to not be logged at WP:AEL/WP:RESTRICT (i.e. as being at fault). As I explained to Lilipo25 on several occasions (and to others facing a similar situation, elsewhere), repeated breaches on their part to that effect, are likely to lead to the one-way IBAN being formally converted as a 2-way one (logging, etc.). So, though in a sense an informal prohibition, I still generally view it as a big no-no. Not sure to what extent this is a prevailing practice among other admins, but that's been my approach to one-way IBANs for a long while now. El_C 17:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Approximately ten minutes ago, I made a mistake and, while saving a report I was writing to this very noticeboard about Newimpartial's repeated violations of this Iban, to my sandbox, accidentally pinged Newimpartial and let them know about it before I could post it here (I did not know that pings saved to my sandbox would be sent, as I rarely use my sandbox, or I would never have put the pings meant for the final report in it. Mea culpa/). Coincidentally, Newimpartial immediately thereafter posted this report first.
    Should I go ahead and post my report after this one or add it to this one? i don't know the appropriate protocol here. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo25, it's probably best that you attach it here as a subsection. But, please, for the love of Gooby, could both of you try to be relatively brief? (Though in the case of Newimpartial, I suppose it's a bit late for that, but for any further follow ups, certainly hoping they keep this in mind.) El_C 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to clarify, to the best of my knowledge, outside of complaints to me and other uninvolved admins, Lilipo25 did not breach the informal prohibition after it was explained to her by me as such — just so there's no confusion whether I am making the claim that she did. Possibly, it did happen, but if so, I remain ignorant of it. El_C 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here it is (and I'm sorry, El C, but it isn't all that brief) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)
    This makes baby Gooby sad. El_C 18:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Report from Lilipo25 about Newimpartial's Iban Violations

    20 February 2021 at 15:12: While talking to an admin Girth Summit about the last Iban violation by Newimpartial who is currently under an Iban placed by El C and barring contact with me or discussion of me on Wikipedia, I accidentally referred to Newimpartial as "he", after previously using only a neutral "they" (bc I did not know what their gender was): [28]
    20 February 2021 at 23:36: Eight hours later, Newimpartial suddenly added to their profile for the first time in their nine years on Wikipedia that they identify as nonbinary and use they/them pronouns [29]
    26 February 2021: In the latest violation of their Iban, Newimpartial sent Girth Summit a second request in ten days to place an Iban on me, as well. In this request, Newimpartial told Girth Summit FOUR TIMES over two comments [30] [31] that I "misgendered" them but did not mention that they only identified themselves and their pronouns AFTER that: [she] has misgendered me ; I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered ; not only has she misgendered me.; As I said previously, I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered.
    In the same comments, Newimpartial also made libelous insinuations, with no proof, that I objected to the slur TERF in a source on an article talk page last week because the author is "transmasculine" In a similar vein, she dismissed a peer-reviewed source as misogynist based on nothing besides her own POV, citing its use of a term (TERF) which she called a slur.[8] Meanwhile, according to the balance of academic and non-activist sources, the claim that "TERF" is a slur is not a neutral statement, but rather a position within a debate that is taking place inside and outside feminism, as documented here. Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess.
    For the record - and since I believe Newimpartial is in the UK, I will use only UK sources -TERF has been called a "gendered slur like bitch and cunt" by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK Parliament, a "pejorative term" by the Standards Commission of Scotland, a "derogatory word primarily aimed at women" by a UK district court judge and "hate speech" by the All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Hate Crime.
    Newimpartial took this even further in that comment, saying that I aim baseless accusations of misogyny directed at those she disagrees with, whether at editors or at the authors of sources or at living public figures (often, though not always, at trans or nonbinary people).
    To my knowledge, Newimpartial is the only editor with whom I have a regular history of interaction who has ever identified themselves as either nonbinary or trans, and they have literally only just done that now.
    In addition, Newimpartial violated the direct instructions of two admins (Girth Summit and El C) to stop speaking about me or following my edits by making complaints to Girth Summit in those two comments about interactions I have had with other editors that did not involve them and opinions I have had about sources and about articles that also did not involve them in any way.
    While Girth Summit once again chose not to sanction Newimpartial for these latest breaches of the Iban, he told me that I should bring it up here if I objected. I do, as this breach not only came with slanderous statements of me that are too extreme to ignore, it is also in my opinion at least the sixth breach in the past several weeks.
    Girth acknowledges this one and the three others here were all breaches [32] [33] [34] . In addition, Girth acknowledged this one as a breach but gave Newimpartial a pass by saying they might not have realized the content they were discussing was written by me (after being told not to discuss my edits): [35]. Then there was this one, that no one even acknowledged, in which Newimpartial took it upon themselves to join a dispute between myself and another editor and which was already being handled by the same two admins (Girth Summit and El C) [36]
    I want to be clear that I would not normally make a further complaint after an admin has ruled, and I am not filing a grievance about Girth's response to this situation now. My complaint is solely about Newimpartial's continual breaches of the Iban and their slanderous accusations toward me in this latest one. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to add here that although it is only a one-way Iban, I have made it a point not to discuss Newimpartial with anyone except the two admins involved in the Iban when breaches occur or I need to ask if something was a breach. Nor do I reply to any of Newimpartial's comments on the talk pages we both edit, nor do I change any of their edits in articles, nor do I follow their edits on other pages that I myself do not edit and keep track of their interactions with other editors or their opinions on those pages. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifications re: Report from Lilipo

    Per BANEX, point 2, am I allowed to make factual comments concerning this submission (which, BTW, I received no notice of until after filing my query above?). I will confine any such clarifications to this section Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. But what do you mean you received no notice? And, anyway, I am the one who had informed both Lilipo25 and GS of this discussion (diff1, 2). Everybody's aware now, in any case. El_C 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    hat harmless digression
    I meant simply that my submission to this board[37] preceded the other user's accidental ping[38] by the better part of an hour. I did not file my query in response to anything the other user was doing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, okay. I'm still slightly confused, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. El_C 18:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. My parenthetical comment was alluding to this diff, specifying that in fact I had no idea of the content now posted as the Report from Lilipo25 section at the time I filed my query about IBAN rules. Because of my lack of access to a working time machine. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a subsection of a thread you authored, what do you mean? You feel you ought to have received a notice for that? What am I missing? El_C 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, stop stealing my jokes! (diff) Grr.😡 El_C 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifications

    • Concerning this diff, I received the other editor's ping about 45 minutes after filing my query in this forum.[39]
    • Concerning In this request, Newimpartial told Girth Summit FOUR TIMES over two comments that I "misgendered" them but did not mention that they only identified themselves and their pronouns AFTER that - I never suggested or implied that the misgendering was intentional, Misgendering can be either. My point was that being discussed by third parties, being unable to make even factual comments about that and being misgendered at the same time was a situation to be avoided by a 2-way IBAN. I would also point out that, while my coming out on wiki was recent, most editors avoid misgendering each other by avoiding gendered pronouns AFAIK; until last week I don't think I had ever been misgendered on-wiki.
    • Concerning since I believe Newimpartial is in the UK, I live in Canada; concerning my (quoted) prior comment that "TERF" is a slur is not a neutral statement, but rather a position within a debate that is taking place inside and outside feminism, as documented here, "here" originally linked to the discussion of that very topic at TERF#Slur debate.
    • The point I was making in that long, quoted passage, in case I was unclear, was that it seems to me a BLP violation to label a living person as a misogynist because they use the term TERF, unless additional evidence or sourcing is provided. I was not invoking the terms of that debate beyond (what I thought was) that simple point. I regard the unattributed use of "TERF" and "misogynist" identically.
    • Concerning In addition, Newimpartial violated the direct instructions of two admins (Girth Summit and El C) to stop speaking about me or following my edits by making complaints to Girth Summit in those two comments about interactions I have had with other editors that did not involve them and opinions I have had about sources and about articles that also did not involve them in any way (emphasis added) - there was no "following" involved in either of my appeals to Girth Summit for a 2-way IBAN [40] [41] - as far as I am aware, all of the diffs I provided are from pages I have had on my list for a long time, though for the second filing they include discussions on those pages in which I was unable to participate because of the IBAN.
    • Concerning the talk page of another editor with whom El C and Girth Summit and I were engaged in discussion, I believe this is a reference to this section. I encourage admins to read the linked discussion, but as far as I am aware I observed my IBAN strictly and confined my discussion to the other editor (with whom I had previously interacted repeatedly, beginning on pages my IBAN partner does not edit) and the two admins.
    • The statement I made in the previous bullet appears to be confirmed by Newimpartial took it upon themselves to join a dispute between myself and another editor and which was already being handled by the same two admins (Girth Summit and El C), where the reference provided points to the same discussion. Again, I encourage interested admin to read this discussion, which concerns a DS topic, the editor whose page it is on, and the two admin, but (at least in my own contributions) does not in any way touch on the editor from whom I am IBANned.

    (Any further clarifications will be added as required). Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional clarifications

    • Concerning El C's statement that Also, to clarify, to the best of my knowledge, outside of complaints to me and other uninvolved admins, Lilipo25 did not breach the informal prohibition after it was explained to her by me as such, I would expect that the following statement made by Lilipo would not be covered by BANEX 2, and certainly not without supporting diffs:
    • I have no expectation for an immediate solution to what is a very contentious and complicated issue between Newimpartial and I. I have been pushed well beyond exasperated. all the way to disgusted, by over a year of continual baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying and don't feel that my staying inside the rules when they simply will not has done me any good at all thus far.[42]
    • My sense therefore is that the conditions of El C's informal prohibition were not in fact maintained, and this seemed to be the view of Girth Summit as well.[43] Also the interaction analysis he offered in the same diff did not find any support for "hounding", nor has any admin ever suggested any gaslighting (or misogyny) on my part. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerning being told repeatedly that I promote and want the rape and murder of trans people[44] - this is not a thing that ever happened in the linked ANI discussion or anywhere else. In fact, I specified in that discussion, I have never said that you have promoted violence against trans people, and no quotations or diffs have ever offered evidence to the contrary.
    • Concerning taunted with the TERF label[45] - this is not a thing that ever happened in my interactions with this editor (or anyone else). The only reference I made to TERFs in that discussion - as any admin can see by checking the link - was I categorically condemn violence against TERFs. That isn't hard for me to do in good conscience. And what is more, I have not and will not edit articles in such a way as to condone or whitewash violence against TERFs, and that was in response to a question raised by Girth Summit concerning my attitude towards violence against TERFs.
    • Concerning the "she whitewashes cop murders of black trans people" accusation[46] - that is also not a thing that actually happened, as anyone can verify at the same link. I see now that my first comment on this matter could be misunderstood:
    quote from the same link

    Lilipo has repeatedly whitewashed articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people.

    However, I later clarified that the "promoting violence" and "standing idly by" were things the "individuals and organizations" had done, not an accusation against an editor:

    another self-quote from the same link

    As far as violence against Trans people is concerned, the first of your two BLP subjects "has been permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation" according to Twitter spokespeople. Your second subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man. Your claim that neither of these activists has condoned or encouraged violence against trans people is, ahem, unproven, and contradicts the available sources.

    So while I understand that my first comment might be confusing, I did clarify, and I certainly made no suggestion that the editor in question was "whitewashing" the incident in question; I stated that they whitewashed the BLP article of an individual who, according to reliable sources, condoned the incident.

    • Concerning that ANI in general, I regard it as probably the lowest point in my participation on WP. I recognize that I let my emotions get in the way of clear thinking and writing in that discussion, and I regret the evident distress it caused to my IBAN partner and other editors. For that reason, I was accepting of the "final warning" I was given after that discussion and have not repeated any of the behaviours I showed there in any subsequent on-wiki interaction, to the best of my knowledge. (It is largely for this reason that accusations of baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying seem so profoundly inaccurate when applied to the period since July 2020, while "gaslighting" and "hounding", like "misogyny", represent things I have never done.)
    • Concerning The addendums upon addendums and Bilorv's statement about a comment I made a year ago are clearly intended to provide distractions - I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but having reviewed this discussion I don't see anywhere that I have referred to said April discussion on this page, at all. My Bilorv section refers only to my filings with Girth Summit, appealing for the 1-way ban to be converted to 2-way.
    • Concerning the black trans man in question had just stabbed to death a black youth, after declaring their own intention to commit 'suicide by cop' in a posted Facebook video, to avoid going back to prison. The subject had worked with the victim's family and expressed no sympathy for his killer - none of that changes the point that I made in the ANI discussion, that the BLP subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man, as reported in reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifications re: the Bilorv section

    • Concerning accusing me of transphobia against "both a "transmasculine writer"[47] - I have never accused any editor of transphobia; what I actually said in my filing was Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess[48] - a statement made entirely without irony, and supported by the relevant diff.
    • Concerning accusing me of specifically targeting "trans and nonbinary users"[49] - well, I didn't do that, either. What I said was, I have listed these ... to document the pattern of baseless accusations of misogyny directed at those she disagrees with, whether at editors or at the authors of sources or at living public figures (often, though not always, at trans or nonbinary people).[50] The examples for which I provided diffs in that filing included four instances where the labels "misogynist", "anti-lesbian" and/or "bigoted against lesbians" were used (never with evidential support), of which three concerned trans or nonbinary people (or publications associated with trans or nonbinary people). But I never alleged targeting "trans or nonbinary users"; I simply observed what often, though not always happened, providing the relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifications re: the El C section

    Lilipo's Responses to Clarifications:

    • Since Newimpartial did not notify me when they opened this discussion (most likely in deference to the Iban), I didn't receive notification of it until El C left a message on my Talk Page, which was after I accidentally 'pinged' El C, Girth Summit and Newimpartial from my sandbox and let them know I was writing a report. I accept Newimpartial's explanation that they in fact posted this report before being notified of mine.
    • My accidental use of the pronoun "he" would not have been avoided by a Two-way Iban. I was speaking to GirthSummit, the admin currently in charge of the Iban, at the time about one of Newimpartial's Iban breaches. This would have been taking place whether or not I was under an Iban at the time or not. Furthermore, Newimpartial's very strident, repeated claim that I 'misgendered' them was at no time accompanied by any disclaimer that I could not have known their pronouns (as they did not add them to their bio until hours later). It stretches credibility to claim they were not attempting to make it seem I had done it deliberately.
    • Sorry, I always thought Newimpartial was in the UK. I did not realize we were both Canucks. I could have used North American sources (and still can, if anyone's interested), but at any rate, it is considered an offensive term by both many people and many official organizations, and is not, as they claimed, believed to be neutral by "academic and non-activist sources", nor is the belief that it is offensive based on merely my POV as stated (and I don't think there are any official bodies or even academic papers, anywhere, that call the word "misogynist" a slur). None of that really matters, tbh, because my objection to that term in a talk page discussion of an article has nothing to do with Newimpartial's Iban and should never have been taken to an admin by them in a bid to get a two-way Iban placed on me.
    • In at least one instance in the past week (the last diff in my comment above), Newimpartial came to a page where they had not been editing (the talk page of another editor with whom El C and Girth Summit and I were engaged in discussion), opened a new section and began offering advice to the other user on how to deal with the issue at hand, which had nothing at all to do with them. It is difficult to see how that doesn't constitute 'following', but even if they had not done that, keeping track of my edits with which they are not involved to report them to admins is, at best, seriously pushing the limits of an Iban. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing I have to clarify from Newimpartial's addendums is that the conversation that they joined on the other user's page did not start there - it started on my Talk page here, between me and the other user, we then asked Girth to mediate there, and it continued there until Girth moved it to the other user's page while I was asleep later that night (as I am in a time zone some hours behind the other participants) [51].
    • I keep thinking I'm done adding things (and I would really like to be) but then more is added by Newimpartial to widen the scope of this just a bit more and I feel I have to respond. I have no idea if any admin has ever used those particular words to describe them, but I will stand my description of what the last year of dealing with this user has been like for me. I am genuinely reluctant to rehash more old drama and had hoped we could just stick to the Iban and yesterday's accusations, but since they have widened the scope to include that description, I now feel that I have no choice but to point out why I have reached the point of complete exasperation with these tactics from Newimpartial, and with one violation of the Iban after another.
      • I could pull up a dozen more gifs here but suspect that would send El C and Gooby over the edge completely, so I will pick one discussion that demonstrates all of those descriptions in one microcosm: the last ANI Newimpartial and I were in together [52].
        • I'm not going to pretend I behaved perfectly there, but If being told repeatedly that I promote and want the rape and murder of trans people because I had said nothing about violence against trans people in discussions that had nothing whatsoever to do with that topic - then taunted with the TERF label to make a "declaration" disavowing the violence I had never even suggested - isn't baiting, bullying and gaslighting, I don't know what is. And that was even before the "she whitewashes cop murders of black trans people" accusation. If you can tell me that you could put up with that kind of thing over the course of a year and not be disgusted, too, you are a far better person than I. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section is now so long from Newimpartial's addendums upon addendums upon addendums that it took me five minutes to find the Edit link for this part.
    • It obviously stretches the limits of credibility to suggest that they said Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess "without irony" - especially since they already KNOW that the reason I said the ARTICLE was misogynistic was the repeated use of the gendered slur TERF including the quote that was included in the reference: "TERFS are not feminists" I have already pointed this out in earlier diffs. Newimpartial falsely implied that my problem was that the writer was "transmasculine" (I don't mean to sound foolish, but I'm not actually sure what that term means, or if I even knew anything about their gender status at that time). Newimpartial knew my objection was to the slur and implied otherwise.
    • Claiming that it violates some rule for me to be of the opinion that Pink News' articles are frequently anti-lesbian and misogynistic - which they very much are - is nonsensical. I have every right to my opinion of that source and to express it and it doesn't violate policy just because Newimpartial disagrees.
      • Newimpartial takes every opportunity they can to call Living Persons whose articles they are editing "anti-transgender", so I am at a complete loss why they keep insisting that it is some sort of violation for me to have the same opinion about anti-lesbian sources or people who have made anti-lesbian and anti-female comments. Why are women and lesbians less worthy of fair sources and decent treatment than trans people? And I would really like to know what in the world my personal opinion of Pink News' bias has to do with their Iban, anyway? Lilipo25 (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that I have shown very clearly that Newimpartial not only violated their Iban six times in the last few weeks to continue harassing me, but repeatedly made extremely egregious and slanderous accusations about me with no proof whatsoever, even after being told repeatedly to stop by admins, and continue doing so right up until this report was filed. The addendums upon addendums and Bilorv's statement about a comment I made a year ago are clearly intended to provide distractions from that (Bilorv is in fact, along with Newimpartial, one of four editors who have long been a group on one side on the Graham Linehan article where we all edit very contentiously, despite their claim that they are a disinterested party and on no one's side) .
    • The last response I will hopefully have to make (and I hope admins will just rule before this endless thread gets any longer) is that for those who did not check that last ANI (and I know most won't have wanted to take on another after reading through this slog), the BLP I created which Newimpartial claimed was about someone who "applauded the police murder of a black trans man" was in fact about a gay rights pioneer behind the first Pride, and the black trans man in question had just stabbed to death a black youth, after declaring their own intention to commit 'suicide by cop' in a posted Facebook video, to avoid going back to prison. The subject had worked with the victim's family and expressed no sympathy for his killer. That's the kind of twisting of facts to represent me in a horrible light that I have been subjected to repeatedly by Newimpartial. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerning this reply from Newimpartial: this is obviously false, as I provided numerous instances AND diffs of the abuse and slander in the original Report of Newimpartial's Iban Violations farther up this thread. Saying it is not CIVIL for me to point out when they have made such false allegations against me while under an Iban is nonsensical.
    Concerning Newimpartial ... has continued their same abuse and slander of me with no deference to (the IBAN) - I don't believe that this comment is either true or CIVIL, and in any event no diffs supporting abuse or slander relating to the period of the IBAN have been presented, AFAICT.

    Comments by Bilorv

    I'm sorry to see this report here and have no doubt that it will not be properly dealt with because these walls of text are impenetrable to uninvolved users, despite El C's request for brevity. I think it's clear that this one-way IBAN needs to be extended to a two-way IBAN and that both participants should be given a final warning after which any sort of reference to the other participant should lead to blocks of escalating lengths. I'm not convinced that there should be any exception to this rule at all even under the premise of "clarifying the IBAN" as Lilipo25 has used this opportunity to make negative implications about a user's disclosure of gender identity and make a wrongful claim of libel which could reasonably be taken as a legal threat, while Newimpartial has made misleading descriptions of Lilipo25's actions in IBAN-related "clarifications". Possibly it could be said that they are permitted to make exactly one edit when they think there has been a breach in which they could inform an uninvolved admin with a cookie cutter wording I believe this edit [link] is a violation of an IBAN described here [link]; could you please investigate? and then not reply further or raise the issue again (including if the admin chooses not to take action). I don't know why this wasn't a two-way IBAN in the first place when it was April 2020 that Lilipo25 said of Newimpartial and another editor: [another editor and Newimpartial] don't think of women as actual people like all misogynists, [...] you've done it for the same reason all misogynists bully and degrade women: the personal sense of power it gives you [...] [Newimpartial and another editor] enjoy smacking a woman into place and telling her it's good for her [53]. This would warrant an WP:NPA 31-hour block were it recent. I should note that I've frequently disagreed with both users before, as I'm sure they would be quick to point out, so this is just a comment by someone who sees both of these usernames everywhere in his watchlist. — Bilorv (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eep. Though my memory of July 2020 is hazy, I highly doubt I would have made it a one-way IBAN had I been made aware of that. Will convert to a 2-way IBAN with immediate effect. Off I go to amend the log. Thank you, Bilorv, for the much needed cogency. El_C 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C I have no intention of contesting the two-way Iban, even if it's over a comment from year ago and I've gotten far worse since (and even if Bilorv has represented themselves as an uninterested party, and not one of the group of four editors who is routinely on the other side from me in the Graham Linehan article, the only article (I believe) we all edit - very contentiously - together. The two-way ban is fine by me. I still want action taken on the six Iban violations AND on the other user's egregious and repeated slander of me yesterday, in direct violation of having been told at the last ANI to stop making those same remarks to me. Let me point out that I have not repeated my violation to them in a YEAR. They repeated theirs to me (accusing me of transphobia against "both a "transmasculine writer" AND falsely accusing me of specifically targeting "trans and nonbinary users") - with no proof on either count - YESTERDAY. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo25, that attack happened in April whereas I imposed the one-way iban in July. Me converting it to 2-way has to do with the fact that had I known about it (which I didn't, I checked), I would not have formulated it as one-way. But, as far I am concerned, this is likely my last action relating to the dispute between you two. Again, for reasons which are my own, I do not wish to engage it further at this time (outside of whatever clarifications are sought from me about it). El_C 03:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you do keep saying that. Whatever your reasons are, best of luck. The Iban change will make no difference to me since you had already specified that we had to act like we were under a two-way ban even when we weren't, so I already was.
    I will state again that I have not repeated that violation in a year, despite no admins ever telling me not to, while they continue to repeat the exact same egregious violations against me over and over, right to the current day despite being told by multiple admins not to and being warned multiple times that it was in violation of the Iban. And that should not be given yet another pass. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [Wow, it seems that every time I'm about to submit a response to one of your comments, I edit conflict to see it double in size. Oh well.] Well, you've pinged me three times today to three different pages about this, so I really don't feel too bad for repeating that a second time. Also, no luck required. Doing nothing is a breeze. El_C 04:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Girth Summit

    I'm not going to attempt to address everything in this exceedingly long thread. The one-way IBan has been converted into a 2-way IBan, which is what Newimpartial wanted, and which Lilipo25 says is fine by her, so that's all good. To go back to Newimpartial's original post, they ask a few questions which are fine in and of themselves, but which do not in my view get to the heart of the reasons I believe that they had been in violation of their IBan. Specifically:

    • If EditorA has an IBan with EditorB, I don't think it appropriate for EditorA to comment on a talk page thread started by EditorB concerning some changes that EditorB wants to make to an article.
    • If EditorC starts a talk page thread which exclusively concerns changes to content that EditorB has written, and there follows a lengthy discussion between EditorC and EditorB, I don't think it appropriate for EditorA to comment on that thread.
    • If EditorA thinks that EditorB has breached the Iban, they may report that breach in a limited factual statement. They should not report stuff that has nothing to do with an IBan however, like failure to assume good faith with third parties. Apart from obvious vandalism, they should not be making reports about EditorB's behaviour at all, and should leave that to other editors.

    Now that it's a two-way ban, I'd expect both editors to abide by these restrictions; if I'm out of step with the community on the boundaries of an IBan, I will be happy to be set right. Best GirthSummit (blether) 11:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Having reviewed your prior interaction analysis between the two of us, I see no examples where I have participated in discussions covered by the first bullet corrected; see my reply below. Concerning the second bullet, you and I have previously disagreed about whether a section to which I contributed, then reverted, earlier this month exclusively concerns changes to content that EditorB has written[54],and I have no intention of repeating that argument.
    But there remain two other examples of the second bullet that I think are worth considering, beginning with the original one where your take differed from that of El C, as described above. In that instance, I offered +1s on two occasions, first in response to the following comment:
    first comment endorsed

    I'm concerned with including anything that has been mentioned in reliable sources and removing anything that has not been mentioned in reliable sources (or anything covered only in sources that do not mention Linehan by name).[55]

    and later (after El C's "ruling"), in response to a second comment:
    second comment endorsed

    I've re-added the second PinkNews source with the briefest description I can manage, given the following: the first sentence has remained in the article after much discussion and a weak consensus (I don't buy "4:2:2" because this isn't a vote but it seems there is more argumentation in favour of inclusion); the incident isn't really "complete" without mentioning that the account was banned and (according to Linehan) replaced; and we want (i.e. have a stronger consensus) to keep this material to a sentence (which I've accomplished with a cheeky semi-colon).[56]

    The text of my two endorsements was, Exactly my view and This compromise seems reasonable to me.
    In the other case (which occurred after I read El C's take and before you offered yours), the original post pointed to an edit by my IBAN partner:
    comment reacted to

    How do we feel about this edit? I was thinking about partially reverting it as it removes several references but I wasn't sure how much to restore or how best to do it. Maybe it was somewhat overcited before but the references seem valid and the removal seems overdone. Maybe we want some of those references back? Maybe they should be moved into the body and out of the intro? What do we think is best?[57]

    And I responded, I still think, without infringing on my IBAN: My own preference in such cases generally is to have abundant references in the body rather than the lede. The caveat I would offer in this case is that if most of the available RS agree with a certain characterization, then it would be UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE to exclude them as redundant, since it could affect the reader's perception of the available sourcing.[58] I don't see any "interaction" there, nor any commentary on the other editor or their edits: even reading this weeks later, it still seems to comply with both policy and the pillars.
    And that, aside from my failed appeals for a 2-way (to which the third bullet relates), is all of the "interaction" on my part, AFAICT. So I still find El C's view that IBANed users are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits to be a more plausible interpretation of WP:IBAN's prohibition to interact with each other and make reference to or comment on each other than a section-level ban based on the content of the opening post or what else had been said in the section, so long as the editor does not, in fact, comment on their IBAN partner or their IBAN partner's editing. Certainly in terms of the goal of building an encyclopedia, this makes more sense to me, but I would still very much like to hear what other admin think on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC) corrected Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would be wise for you and me to get into a back and forth on this if we ever hope to get other people's views. Briefly, therefore, this is the edit you made which I felt was covered by my first bullet. GirthSummit (blether) 14:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Girth Summit; I thought I had been exhaustive, but evidently I missed the link to that thread (which was in your different take diff I cited above). I am not at all sure whether I even recognized when I wrote that, that the section was opened by my IBAN partner. The comment I was replying to was this:
    comment replied to

    No, The Independent does not quote one person, it quotes at least two, as evidence of its perceived anti-trans stance. Your reading of The Scotsman is totally bizarre. The "but" is referencing the two-paragraphs-earlier self-description; the rest of the sentence refers to the above paragraph. Whether TSP's proposed wording is accurate or not is not the point of my comment—just that yours definitely isn't. And, of course, it is quite convenient that the sources that you removed from the page support TSP's wording that you are now challenging, like this.

    And the "your" referred to in that comment was my IBAN partner. But my comment was this: That PinkNews piece certainly adds weight to Avery Edison's view that the LGB alliance is transphobic by commission and not simply by omission. On the other hand she is neither an organization nor a politician, AFAIK, so that source in itself doesn't support TSP's proposed language (TSP being the editor whose proposal was under discussion). Once again, I do not see any "interaction" there with the person from whom I was IBANned (and again this was in the period when the latest instructions I had were those from El C, referenced above). So it still seems to me that the actual comment I made followed both the letter and the intent of WP:IBAN, although it certainly does run afoul of your first bullet, Girth Summit. I hope the specific examples encourage, rather than discouraging, other admins to comment. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by El_C

    First, I have now converted the original July one-way IBAN to 2-way (AEL diff), with a note that any non-fault implications have been rescinded. I've done so per Bilorv (credits ping) revelations of Lilipo25's egregious attack of Newimpartial on April 15 (diff). Had I been made aware of it back then, I never would have gone with a one-way IBAN later in July.

    Note that Newimpartial had said to me yesterday [on my talk page]: but I did mention the April attack already back in April on your talk page. And I was, like: no, you didn't, I just checked my talk page archives and there's nothing of the sort there. But, they did mention it, in fact (diff). Well, long story less long, it turns out that on April 19, while I slept, Lilipo25 posted a complaint on my talk page (diff), but after a heated exchange with Newimpartial, ended up removing the entire section, along with both of their comments (diff).

    So, again, until yesterday I was none the wiser about any of it. The April 15 attack —which I likely would have sanctioned Lilipo25 for at the time, even when finding about it 4 days after the fact— the April 19 exchange on my talk page. Neither of these. I'll spare linking to where this was discussed on my talk page yesterday between Newimpartial and myself (easy to find, in any case), as it basically just involves our lengthy trial-and-error process whereupon we ended discovering what actually was what. But I will provide a permanent link to my discussion about it with Lilipo25 (after myself and Newimpartial had concluded). Not to jinx it, but... //Out (For real this time, hopefully — gods of chance: please have mercy! I tremble before thy wrath.) El_C 16:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All I can to this is that the comment I made a year ago in a very heated exchange with Newimpartial was inappropriate and I do regret it. It's why I haven't repeated it for a year, despite no admin telling me not to and despite Newimpartial continuing to post the same abusive accusations to me over and over throughout that year, even though they've been told by numerous admins to stop.
    As for the removal of the complaint I made against Newimpartial on El C's talk page: I apparently decided I wasn't up to yet another war with Newimpartial at that time and removed the whole complaint (I don't actually remember any of this as it was some time ago), but obviously shouldn't have taken out their replies with it. However, Newimpartial was very aware that I removed that whole complaint - they were watching the page and replying back and forth with me - and did not either report it to El C or repost that comment.
    More importantly, the Iban was in fact placed several months later after more exchanges between us on El C's page. Newimpartial had the opportunity then to show El C the comment - as, indeed, they showed El C many other comments of mine that they deemed important in opposing the original Iban - and again, did not, even knowing the complaint where they had sent it to El C months earlier had been deleted.
    I have stated that I am fine with a two-way ban and I am, as it changes nothing from my end. El C had already told us to act like it was a two-way ban so I was. My only concern is that Newimpartial has not abided by the ban (six breaches in the past few weeks alone) and has continued their same abuse and slander of me with no deference to it. There is no reason at all to believe this is going to stop at any point, as they never receive any consequence for it, no matter how many 'final' warnings they've been given. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking as someone who is completely disenheartened at the idea of trying to parse this entire section: A 2-way is o much simpler. I would be happy to just block someone for violating their I-ban when I know it doesn't matter if the other person has been unfairly baiting them. I can frickin' just block that person too. —valereee (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Post Malone

    (non-admin closure) Unnecessary report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What happened vandalism warned User:TheVideoGamePhenom. Revert of edit Post Malone RoseGold1250 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @RoseGold1250: Yes, the edit by TheVideoGamePhenom to the article Post Malone [59], was not an improvement, fiddling with the protection template and changing "Malone" to "Post" throughout, contrary to normal Wikipedia style, but the only step needed was to revert the edit -- which I have now done. It's hardly an issue to bring to the noticeboards, which are meant for serious, ongoing or intractable problems. I will be removing the notice you placed on TheVideoGamePhenom's talk page and will replace it with a simple editing notice. I'm also going to close this discussion, although anyone can re-open it who thinks the close is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Foodprofessor

    User is suspected to arm only one person's reputation, Sylvain Charlebois by changing endings. The page fully explains circumstances of an investigation 3 years ago. Foodprofessor's changes are not reasonable, wishes title to imply guilt, but charges were drop three years ago. Name of user also suspicious as Sylvain Charlebois is known as the food professor as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvez (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant diffs to Sylvain Charlebois: [60], [61] and [62]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I have notified User: Foodprofessor of this discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit suspect because the BLP subject (Sylvain Charlebois) writes a blog called "The Food Professor", and a new account (Foodprofessor) uses that name while adding a heading "Bullying and Harassment Allegations" to the article diff. I'm not sure if that warrants a user-name block but it probably does. Janvez might be a bit close to the subject but a couple of their edits that I checked look reasonable. @Janvez: Consider reporting at WP:BLPN in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or WP:COIN, I have the impression that there are multiple editors with a conflict of interest, considering the single purpose accounts, —PaleoNeonate – 08:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit was not intended to imply guilt. I suspect User: Janvez IS the BLP subject (Sylvain Charlebois) and has been creating and editing his own Wikipedia page for years under this username and several additional unregistered IP addresses. Most changes on the page are associated with an unregistered IP address which traces back to Nova Scotia where his campus is located. In addition, User: Janvez and his aliases only ever make edits on topics related to Sylvain Charlebois and his perferred topics. Does the BLP policy allow for users to use a page as an infomercial to advance their agenda? Foodprofessor (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User: Janvez Made changes to many pages over the years. Generally suspicious of user:Foodprofessor as I'm aware Sylvain Charlebois was in the news globally of late, criticizing the dairy industry. User Foodprofessor who could be related to dairy just appeared recently, edited the page on issues which happened 3 years ago. A dispute was resolved 3 years ago about this very section. Not necessary to go through this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvez (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pure nonsense. Why are we wasting our time here? 73.81.116.196 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nmi628 not Assuming Good Faith

    User Nmi628 does not assume good faith and has been provoking edit wars with several users, specifically with regards to Nick Fuentes page. She accuses users of spreading disinfo and 'whitewashing' his actions. She also accuses users of not using reliably sourced content when that is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natelindy (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gladly. Here is what I removed of his. He cited Fuentes' twitter as a reliable source, which it is not. Additionally, he has been edit warring to remove the label "white nationlist" from the lede and body despite several other users pointing out a plethora of reliable sources describing Fuentes as such, as seen here on the talk page. Natelindy has repeatedly attempted to POV Railroad edits to the page, namely hiding all references to Fuentes' white nationalism. Racists are unwelcome on Wikpedia per WP:NONAZIS, and we should not be in the business of whitewashing white nationalists when reliable sources are clear. This has nothing to do with "not assuming good faith". Nmi628 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me it is you attempting to war in information sourced to Twitter and a mediocre source, and remove the sourced "white nationalist" descriptor: [63], . GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly correct, GorillaWarfare . When several users repeatedly remove reliably sourced content describing someone as a "white nationalist" without further discussion or pointing to contradictory sources, I would describe that as whitewashing. Nmi628 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natelindy: It takes two to edit war, and it's ironic to repeatedly accuse Nmi628 of "provoking edit wars" as you continue to edit war with them. When material you've added has been contested, the thing to do is take a step back and begin a discussion about it on the article talk page to achieve consensus, not war versions of it back into the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at SPI

    WP:SPI is currently backlogged with reports predating last Christmas awaiting attention. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor at Ludwig Wittgenstein

    I would appreciate any advice on how to proceed with the new, apparently WP:SPA, editor at this article. I don't know if this editor has English as their first language (I suspect possibly not), and I don't want to appear WP:BITEY, or to get into any kind of edit war, but I am struggling to understand this user's extremely long and complicated edit summaries and Talk page posts. And it seems I'm not alone there. Any suggestions or interventions gratefully received. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, you're talking about Uniquepw? 93.173.224.233 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject generated thoughts which I found difficult to locate within my account pages. I'll just have to use the sandbox to look through sources and write some thoughts down there. The subject seems tragic, so I had problems dealing with the emotional reactions, because of their being a tangential connection of the individual to my self (not a social connection), which disturbed my composure at an objective position of thought, because I felt connected to the individual actually, I couldn't think dispassionately, which created confusion. I have unusually not been sleeping enough and at the correct times for a period recently. I need to sleep now so I'll do that and maybe I won't come back, or will return in an improved state of mind (rather than an impish state of mind). Sorry to disturb the tranquil status quo. i am uniquepw (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Rangeblock wording

    I am proposing a change to the {{Rangeblock}} wording. Opinions at Template talk:Rangeblock#Wording changes please. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Automatic filter found potentialy harmfull page

    Hello,

    i would need some help of what exactly did filter found harmull on the page, i need to publish it asap. So i would need any advice that could be given in the short time notice. Thanks in advance this is the link of the page https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasa_Mirkovic?veswitched=1&veaction=edit&oldid=23650875

    I have given it with edit link, since i can not remove it. IT would delete what i wrote... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawnjfk (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Spawnjfk We cannot help you with issues on another language Wikipedia; each language version is its own project with their own editors and policies. You will need to ask the editors on that version for help. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    REFSPAM and MEAT for Ian Urbina, likely PAID

    Background Info
    Involved editors

    I plan to block the above-mentioned accounts for WP:REFSPAM and, based on the preponderance of evidence, undisclosed WP:PAID. I originally filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiamCardigan based on an AIV report from Pepperbeast. LiamCardigan, Khloe Bear, and Emmatucker67 all were adding references to Ian Urbina's work without any other substantial contributions. Pepperbeast pointed out Blake Shawl and the socks associated there as well as JoeyMaxwell, Gary Oakman, Holla9211, and Nicole Hartman after the initial SPI I filed.

    Unfortunately, Oshwah found no CU evidence connecting the accounts, so I strongly suspect MEAT with PAID given that 10 other accounts were doing the same thing.

    I recall this happening with another journalist (I don't recall the name off the top of my head), so this seems it may be a wider problem. But for now I wanted to report here and have others please review my forthcoming blocks to make sure I'm not making an error.

    EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notifications in a few minutes., EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Notifications completed. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

    In case anyone fancies closing some discussions, there is currently quite a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (Disclaimer: this includes an RfC that I started 79 days ago...). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on Mike Lindell and My Pillow

    Apparently, Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow, made a speech at CPAC where he called Wikipedia "very corrupt" for having "taken over my Wikipedia", by which I assume he means "his" Wikipedia page. [64] (Once again, a public figure misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, taking it to be a promotional medium, and believing that they can control "their" Wikipedia article.)

    Both articles are semi'd but additional eyes on them would still be a good idea, in case anyone gets the idea that settling the score would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thumbs up icon EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: "taken over my Wikipedia" (emphasis added) — unforgivable lowercase. It's My Wikipedia, to you, philistines! You'll sleep soundly knowing the project is in good hands. I know I will. El_C 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in the interest of good recordkeeping, noting that I am the one who indef semi'd My Pillow (logged AP2 action). And, unrelated-relatedly, I've also indef semi'd the Jewish space lasers redirect, of which I am the creator (diff). An unlogged and INVOLVED AE action — the corruption on my part is almost unbelievable! Erm, I mean, firing lasers: pew-pew! El_C 17:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

    Administrator changes

    added TJMSmith
    removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

    Interface administrator changes

    added AmandaNP

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
    • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
    • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Information of a deleted file

    Please tell me file information of File:ContrabassoonBrown.jpg (author, date on created, source and licence) if deleted revisions are left. It was copied to pl:Plik:Kontrafagot.jpg and ja:ファイル:Kontrafagot.jpg) but file information is missing. See also pl:Wikipedia:Prośby do administratorów#File information. --本日晴天 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All it said was:
    Contrabassoon
    From the polish wikipedia pl:Grafika:Kontrafagot.jpg
    They mark it as unverified - source unknown.
    El_C 13:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the mystery is unlikely to be solved. However, as a result it's a reason to delete the file on jawiki. Thank you! --本日晴天 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with editor (Vandalism + Calling everything "right wing propaganda")

    I have a problem with @Fram:, who is determined to prevent the creation of an article called "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" and called it "Right-wing propaganda article" in an edit summary.

    What happened in order: -I created the article with 3 RS (NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal) + Fox News article which isn't considered RS.

    -I add it to Portal:Current Events since it was gaining mention on a lot more RS (will mention later).

    -I add more information which included an ABC article (Considered RS)

    -Fram moves it to draft state with the edit summary "Extreme POV / slanted article (and title)".

    -I move it back to article space as the article being moved had no discussion and was messing up the format on the Portal:Current events.

    -I started a discussion on Fram's talk page to talk and ask why he thought it was slanted with RS from both political sides. See User talk:Fram#Question to why you move article to draft. -Fram reverts my edit on the Portal:Current events with no edit summary.

    -I revert his edit back on the Portal due to no edit summary.

    -Fram moves it to a draft with the edit summary of "Right-wing propaganda article". Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing".

    -I move it back to article space.

    -Fram reverts my edit on the portal with the edit summary of "Article is in draft space as a NPOV violation"

    -I add a vandalism warning to his talk page (level 2).

    -Fram removes the vandalism warning from his talk page with the edit summary of "Removing Fake Warning".

    -Fram warns me on my talk page (see User talk:Elijahandskip#WP:NPOV]]).

    -I message him that it isn't "right wing propaganda" as multiple RS are reporting on it.

    -The article is back in draft state & removed from the Current event portal.

    -I start the admin board.

    With all the moving and stuff, I can't link every single change, so here is a list of the places for it. [65] , [66], [67], [68], [69].

    Need an admin to solve this problem ASAP. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I honestly really don't care too much about the article now, but I am concerned with the edit summary "Right wing propaganda" as it made headlines in tons of RS. A google search of "Dr. Seuss Cancelled" brings dozens of news articles from the RS (Both political parties and AP News, which is basically neutral). That is a big red-flag for me. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief word from an uninvolved onlooker--while this has certainly received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, framing it as "cancellation of Dr. Seuss" strikes me as not the most neutral choice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid Yeah, in hindsight, I see that. The adminboard isn't for the article problems. I am more concerned that an editor is calling all RS "right-wing propaganda". Depending on this noticeboard (Basically if the topic isn't perm blocked) I will work on creating a 100% NPOV draft article to move to article space. Still thinking about the title, but in the current state, I am honestly worried about any new draft just being speedy deleted by Fram due to the crazy edit summaries he is doing. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It probably belongs in the main Seuss article, with "cancelled" attributed as someone's opinion (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:YESPOV), —PaleoNeonate – 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When you create an article with a title making a claim only used in Fox News + an opinion piece in the WSJ, and with the first line a BLP violation against Joe Biden sourced only to Fox News, then you shouldn't complain that your article gets moved to draft space or is considered right wing propaganda. Claiming here that "Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing"." is rather disingenious: you used Fox News to attack Biden, you don't deny that Fox News is (very) right wing, you just deny that it is a RS. Fine, but then why use it? If you agree that Fox News isn't a RS, then you shouldn't have started this AN discussion (or tried repeatedly to get the page in the mainspace and in the Portal Current Events), but should have replied with an indication that you would drop the unreliable POV source and edit the draft article accordingly. Fram (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the same editor just a few days ago had to delete their article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Biden Agenda. There seems to be some common theme here. Fram (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram:, so you are saying that because of a Fox News article and opinion piece, you called the other RS "right wing propaganda"? Also the other article is irrelevant in this discussion. This is about you and me fighting in this article and you calling AP News "right wing propaganda". This topic is notable and is slanted just due to the nature of it. I will rework the draft article excluding those 2 sources as I have 5 RS still. If we have a problem again, I will go higher... Elijahandskip (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I say that all sources in that article were right wing? What I said was that the article you wrote was a right-wing propaganda piece, mixing some neutral sources about one event (the publishers decision to stop printing some of Seuss' books) with severely biased ones, deciding to present the POV of those latter sources as the basis for your title and for the rather inflammatory start of the article (a start which wasn't supported in any of the RS). So yes, I stand by my opinion that you created a right-wing propaganda piece where you added some RS to give your BLP violation / attack piece an air of legitimacy. Fram (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)And looking at their created articles, I note the following deleted ones; Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, Bidenism, Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer, Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine. Perhaps it's time to think of a post-1992 US politics ban? Fram (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to like the "sensationalist" article titles, they created Assassination of Luca Attanasio ignoring an ongoing discussion of the use Assassination too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And there's quite a bit of rhetoric in their editing history about Wikipedia being biased against the truth, which is not a great sign. Grandpallama (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fram: & @Joseph2302:, I withdraw my adminboard notice about Fram. There is no reason to go to a ban on post 1992 topics. All I do on Wikipedia is help improve current event topics. Back in April 2020, I helped revive the WikiProject of Current Events from years of hibernation. I understand that I caused problems in the past with those topics and I got warned for those topics along with other editors. I only want to help improve Wikipedia and I really enjoy understanding Current events. So please, let us forget this happened, move on, and continue improving Wikipedia for the better. I promise to not try and create any drafts or articles about the Dr. Seuss issue, but instead, will use RS to help improve articles. I really am sorry for problems I cause on Wikipedia. I just think differently than most people, but I still want to help improve Wikipedia for the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd agree with a TBAN from post-1992 politics. This is the same user who has a history of naming Wikipedia editors on his personal blog (which he only stopped after two discussions and significant admin pressure), maintained links to sketchy sites on his userpage (taking down the one to Breitbart again only after admin pressure), and has set up his own alternative Wikipedia where his deleted articles have gone to live. I don't have the sense that there's much potential here for NPOV editing of American political issues. For a relatively new user, he's already generated quite a bit of timesink. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please no. I really am sorry. I will take a break from editing Wikipedia and will come back and I promise that I will edit with NPOV. Current events is why I edit Wikipedia. Please, give me another chance and I promise I will not disappoint. Please. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been concerned about Elijahandskip's judgement in US politics related topics since I first came across a bizarrely formatted RfC at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, in the course of which Elijahandskip criticised editors by name in their off-wiki blog. Elijahandskip then added to me to a list of editors on their user page who "who show a strong biased on a talk page or edit summary have a potential to have edit wars with Elijahandskip", presumably based on the fact that I (along with others) advised them to remove the blog post. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden I voiced my concern, also later expressed by another editor, that adding the article (which was eventually deleted as being factually incorrect/misleading) to the current affairs portal, driving up views to the page, was a serious misjudgement that might border on advocacy. Elijahandskip dismissed my "accusation" as invalid because "we have had problems in the past" and demanded an apology. I can't speak about their contributions outside of political topics, but within US politics I don't believe Elijahandskip has the required competence to edit constructively, and they've repeatedly demonstrated an adversarial attitude of viewing collegial criticism as evidence of a liberal conspiracy among editors. Jr8825 • Talk 16:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Conspiracy? What conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any way I can prove I am competent to edit US politic topics? I want to try to show that I can. I am afraid that if I do get banned, I will never have a chance to show that I have matured. My last problem was back in January and since then, I have been working hard on constructive editing which included 4 ITN nominations. Today was miscommunication between me and Fram and I foolishly involved others when I needed to talk to him. Just let me show that I have changed is all I am asking. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Preventing the creation of an article about cancellation. Somehow, there's a common theme in that action. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't ban me from editing Post 1992 Politic articles. I promise you that I have matured from where I was back in November to January which is where most of my problems occurred. I can't prove that I have matured other than talking about my contributions in February. 4 successful ITN nominations with one of those being an article I created. As I stated earlier, miscommunication lead to this and I don't want a stupid mistake to ruin what I have been trying to improve on over the last month. Please. Just give me another chance to help prove to you guys that I have matured. Please. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if you annoy enough editors, enough times on this general topic (post-1992 US politics), the end result will be a topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elijahandskip You ask how you can prove that you are competent to edit in this topic area. I think that a good way to start would be for your to read through the comments that Fram and other editors have made, take a bit of time to digest them, and then explain why that draft is unfit for publication as an article. As things stand, I'm not sure that you understand why it's unpublishable, which would indeed mean that you aren't competent to edit in that topic area. GirthSummit (blether) 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The draft in question is Draft:Cancellation of Dr. Seuss/2 which is a really shoddy piece of work in its current form that begins with a cheap shot against Joe Biden for not mentioning Dr. Seuss in a proclamation about children's reading programs, as if he is somehow obligated to mention that author. Consider this editor's insistence that this matter is widely discussed in reliable sources, mentioning the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. The fact of the matter is that ABC and NBC simply reprinted the Associated Press story. That's one source not three. Selection of the politically charged term "Cancellation" for the title indicates a complete failure of the neutral point of view. Wikipedia needs conservative editors who are competent, careful, collaborative and mature. This editor is none of those things, as their user page shows. Support topic ban from post 1992 U.S. politics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict before Cullen328)Girth Summit (Pinging due to edit conflict) I have read through all the comments (Starting with the draft in question) and I would like to explain why it is unpublishable as an article. So the whole problem appears to be the title & lead sentence which was "The cancellation of Dr. Seuss began on March 1, 2021, when President of the United States, Joe Biden, erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day which is a day to honor Dr. Seuss's birthday on March 2.". As far as I can tell, the rest of the information has no problems with Fram (Saying him as the others joined after I started this discussion). The title "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" 100% violated NPOV as it directly isn't a cancellation of Dr. Seuss, just the removal of publication of some books. Early on in this discussion (before Fran's first reply), I acknowledged that it was a poor choice of words to use. Now let me talk about the lead. It was a horrible lead that was mixed with opinion and facts. The opinion part was "erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day". Joe Biden never removed all (All being the key word) Dr. Seuss books from the "Read Across America Day". The lead was also sourced to two non-RS sources. That was a major problem. The lead should always be sourced with RS and all information on the article should be sourced with RS for that matter. I do see how Fran's and other editors thought I was attacking Joe Biden as I made a false statement in the lead about him cancelling Dr. Seuss books, which he never did. I also made a mistake on the WSJ article as I forgot to check if it was "news" vs "opinion". The Fox News article shouldn't have been added since the WSJ was an opinion piece. I know Wikipedia has no consensus on Fox News (Per the discussion here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303), but I don't see a problem adding it when (when being a keyword) an RS backs up what it said. Because I didn't check the WSL article out, I foolishly added 2 non-rs together and called it RS. That was a mistake I made and in the future, I will make sure to check the articles out more closely before adding them. Hopefully you (the editors involved in this discussion) can see that I understand the mistakes I made and that I am sorry for making them. I caused massive problems on Wikipedia from October to January (totally about 112 pages worth of discussions from comments I made). But, I have been really working to improve on my bad reputation and do constructive editing on Wikipedia. Hopefully you guys don't decide to ban me on Post-1992 US political articles and can see that I am truly sorry for this. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding since I had a new comment from Cullen328. Cullen328 exactly stated what I said was my mistakes. I do understand the mistakes I made, but I really don't want a stupid mistake of miscommunication to cause me to lose all that I have tried to build back during February. So from the bottom of my heart, please, let me have another chance on Wikipedia and I promise I will not let you (editors in this discussion) down. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    support TBan. This answer touches on some of the things that are wrong with that draft, but it's really only scratching the surface. Add to that the fact that just a few hours ago, the user was so convinced that the article was legitimate that they were willing to edit war it back into article space, accuse Fram of vandalism, and start a thread here. I think that 6 months working in less contentious areas would be in the user's own interest - seriously, this isn't intended to punish you, this will help you hone your skills and become better at this. GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    AP2 topic ban imposed (AE)

    Please note that I have imposed a 6-month WP:AP2 WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN on Elijahandskip (logged AE action). As I note in the log, if this discussion reaches consensus for a different outcome, will amend accordingly. El_C 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support 6-month ban, which will allow Elijahandskip time to demonstrate by editing other articles that they've taken in the comments here and used that feedback to adjust their editing behavior. This seems necessary as Elijahandskip's responses to Fram's critique of the article were unreservedly combative until a ban was mentioned at which point they did a complete turn-around of attitude. It shouldn't take the possibility of ban to make Elijahandskip listen to other editors or to discuss disagreements or to respond to criticisms. Schazjmd (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Query

    Is it permissible to post information to Wikipedia of the form....

    • Person X was born in country Y on year Z
    • Person X graduated from university Y with degree Z

    ...without providing an inline citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carter Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it isn't a strict requirement. But what is is having an WP:RS which verifies these elsewhere on the article, somewhere. El_C 17:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1009869860"