Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 7 March 2021 (→‎Czechia RFC instead of RM: reasons differ (Dennis Brown)). 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 9 4 13
    TfD 0 0 1 3 4
    MfD 0 0 4 2 6
    FfD 0 0 2 0 2
    RfD 0 0 37 18 55
    AfD 0 0 0 4 4

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 8389 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha 2024-09-14 06:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Ogaden (clan) 2024-09-13 20:38 2026-09-13 20:38 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    Galileo Galilei 2024-09-13 19:05 indefinite move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Template:Infobox cricket tournament 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Archive top red/styles.css 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3381 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2024-09-13 15:28 2024-12-13 15:28 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; up to ECP as semi isn't sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Anastasia Trofimova 2024-09-12 21:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter
    Halhul 2024-09-12 16:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Kuči (tribe) 2024-09-12 00:06 2025-09-12 00:06 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/EE ToBeFree
    Russians at War 2024-09-11 18:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Flourless chocolate cake 2024-09-11 16:00 2025-09-11 16:00 edit Edit warring by autoconfirmed Valereee
    Marron glacé 2024-09-11 15:57 2025-09-11 15:57 edit Persistent sock puppetry, ongoing, by autoconfirmed editors Valereee
    Koi Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Koi... Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Sarah McBride 2024-09-11 03:33 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action under GENSEX Daniel Case
    Election denial movement in the United States 2024-09-11 02:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP AP Ad Orientem
    Lisa Cameron 2024-09-11 00:47 2025-09-11 00:47 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    Virtuous Pedophiles 2024-09-10 23:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Aoidh
    Elisa Hategan 2024-09-10 23:45 2024-09-17 23:45 edit Dropping to ecp, edit war is between non-ec accounts ScottishFinnishRadish
    Caleb Alloway 2024-09-10 23:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
    Jaime Macías Alarcón 2024-09-10 23:22 indefinite create Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
    Anomaly detection 2024-09-10 21:36 2024-09-17 21:36 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    September 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack 2024-09-10 19:29 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Koch people 2024-09-10 18:55 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE 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]

    This, to me, does not seem like a great thread. I will start by saying that I have not edited any of the articles in question (outside of, perhaps, reverting vandalism on RC patrol). I am not a virologist or a doctor. I am just a guy who's a Wikipedia editor for fun. However, I have not been seeing a "discredited conspiracy theory" getting "pushed by SPAs"; indeed, I don't think I have seen anyone seriously say that the coronavirus was created in a lab and then released on purpose for some reason (which is absurd and no sources say this happened).

    The thing I've seen is a litany of discussions started on various noticeboards, talk pages, MfDs, etc, in which the same accusation is made (namely, that everyone on one side of this debate is a SPA or a sock or a meatpuppet). That may be true, at this point; I'd say most reasonable people have gotten sick of it by now (I certainly have), and the only people left are people who care to an extreme degree about this. From the WP:RSN and WP:MEDRS kerfluffu ("does the origin of an epidemic need to be backed up by refs that meet medical sourcing standards, since it involves humans, who have bodies, which are studied by the field of medicine?") to the WP:ANI kerfluffu ("is this person being disruptive?") to the other WP:ANI kerfluffu ("is this other person being disruptive?") to the WP:MfD kerfluffu ("should this draft in userspace be deleted?") to the multiple Talk:COVID-19 misinformation kerfluffues, to this one now at WP:AN, it is hard to imagine someone who wasn't a tendentious (or at least strongly opinionated) editor even being able to remember what all of them were about.

    Since I do not feel up to the task of copy-pasting the exact same posts into a dozen different discussions about the exact same thing for weeks on end, I will say again, for the record, that Wikipedia's job is not to be an authoritative decisionmaker on controversies where reliable sources have not reached consensus, or to reflect the truth: it is to report facts. The facts here seem to be that, at one point, a number of credible people thought this was a possibility, and now a smaller number of them do, while others do not. Can we not just say that and get it over with? jp×g 22:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on something else

    I would like to thank User: SQL for 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]

    You though it was over?

    There's still some activity on the talk page of the (former POV fork, now redirect); Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis; mostly additions of "sources" to an impressive looking table (hint: MEDRS are very scarce...). The talk page shouldn't be used as an indefinite incubator/LINKFARM for a page for which there is no consensus for existence as anything but a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note the suspicious creation of a user sub-page by an IP (seemingly logged-out, probably block evading user, since IPs can't send emails to users) here who also asks the editor in question about emails (given what we know about canvassing...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:33, 5 March 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]

    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.[6]

    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. [7] 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 [8]. When I asked GS about what I thought was a very cautious contribution, about a passage I had edited in the past, [9] he expressed his view that it was an IBAN violation,[10] so I reverted.[11] 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).[12] The first time I offered a somewhat technical history of the sequence of events leading to and following the ban[13], which he had no problems with under BANEX 2 as far as I could tell, though he did object[14] to my followup comment[15] 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. [16] After some back-and-forth for clarification, GS finally got me to understand [17] 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): [18]
    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 [19]
    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 [20] [21] 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 [22] [23] [24] . 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): [25]. 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) [26]
    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[27] preceded the other user's accidental ping[28] 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.[29]
    • 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 [30] [31] - 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.[32]
    • 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.[33] 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[34] - 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[35] - 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[36] - 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"[37] - 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[38] - a statement made entirely without irony, and supported by the relevant diff.
    • Concerning accusing me of specifically targeting "trans and nonbinary users"[39] - 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).[40] 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) [41].
    • 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 [42].
        • 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 [43]. 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[44],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).[45]

    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).[46]

    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?[47]

    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.[48] 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]

    Withdrawal of Complaint

    • Let's face it, this thing is now so long, there's no chance anyone will ever be willing to read through it sufficiently to give a fair opinion or decision. At any rate, as I posted on my talk page yesterday [49], I have been threatened by an admin (Newslinger) with whom I disagreed about a source on the RS page that they would share a 'report' they say contains personal information about me and that was emailed to them from another editor seven months ago (although they did nothing with it until the first time I disagreed with them yesterday, when they opened an SPI against me [50]).
    • Newslinger wouldn't tell me at first what kind of "personal information" was in this report, making me physically ill with fear. I am a radical feminist, and radfems are frequently doxxed and threatened with everything from rape to death by people who don't agree with our opinions, so keeping my anonymity is paramount. After I posted that I would leave Wikipedia as soon as the SPI was done in order to keep my personal information from getting out, Newslinger finally posted that the report they had was only about twitter postings, but now they claim they have received a second email report with secret information about me from another editor and I don't know what's in that one, so I once again feel sick. Newslinger has closed the SPI before it was ever actually acted upon, and so for my own safety, I will now retire from Wikipedia, effective immediately. It's a horrible way to end two years of editing. Regardless, I now withdraw my complaint against Newimpartial. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Lilipo25, I am sorry that my filing of the sockpuppet investigation had caused you distress. The report has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee, whose function is to "oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite", and which will handle the case from here on. For the avoidance of doubt, the only "personal information" in the report is content from social media that constitutes off-wiki canvassing (meatpuppetry) in the gender and sexuality topic area. — Newslinger talk 08:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [51], [52] and [53]. --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]

    Hi, first accept my apologies because English is not my natural tongue. I'm a sysop on fr-wp. Janvez (talk · contribs) is know on fr-wiki as a SPA who keeps writing promotional content on Sylvain Charlebois, who created 4 sock-puppets to influence a debate read RCU and who keeps doing edit warring against any criticism. Because this SPA only brings promotion, edit warring and sock-puppets, I eventually blocked them on fr-wiki recently. There was edit warring en fr-wiki with Janvez vs GenesisPRO (talk · contribs) and DALalumni (talk · contribs) (undergoing RCU). Best regards, - - Bédévore [knock knock] 19:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Weirdly, a COIN thread was opened by Foodprofessor. Claiming COI on the part of other users.--- Possibly (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. RCU on fr-wp: DALalumni (talk · contribs) is probably GenesisPRO (talk · contribs) - read. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 09:01, 4 March 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]

    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]
    • Gravitymonkey You could start by answering whether you have a conflict of interest in regard to Urbina, and whether you have any relationship with User:Eli779632. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond My Ken I do know Urbina, we've met via email back in 2005 when I served as a source on some of his work at The New York Times (won't go into more detail), and occasionally communicated via email since. I did start a bunch of work on his page a few years back, as you noted. I don't know who Eli is -- I've never met/communicated with him. Are you requesting that I add COI tags or similar to his page?
    Spotted another one... user:Onaroadcalledoppenheimer PepperBeast (talk) 16:36, 4 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. [54] (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]
    Regarding "my Wikipedia" vs. "My Wikipedia" - this was from a spoken speech so we can't tell if he capitalized it or not. In his mind I'm sure he capitalized it (possibly ALLCAPS). The philistine Philistine philistine is the transcript recorder. You can't get good help these days. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the philistine here. According to Wikipedias articles, Philistines are an ancient people and are capitalized; philistines are people too lazy or ignorant to know the difference. Self-description acknowledged. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 6 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")

    Boomerang TBAN from American politics. Collapse as courtesy — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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. [55] , [56], [57], [58], [59].

    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]
    Just as an FYI, the date was chosen because it was Dr. Seuss' birthday and Presidents make note of that in the proclamation. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be closed also. Original reason was withdrawn 8 hours ago. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although a TBAN was imposed, I am concerned, based on many of the frantic responses above and below this, that Elijahandskip lacks the emotional maturity required to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner. The off-wiki score-settling is certainly not a good look. If any further disruption occurs outside of this subject matter, we ought to consider the need for additional sanctions. For now, perhaps a warning would suffice.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A double "punishment" would be too much. The section below was about me. This section should be closed as it was withdrawn almost a day ago. This has just turned into a mess. A tBan is a major wakeup call to me. Honestly, I am considering this staying open an entire day more than it should have been like bullying. Basically no matter how much I would change, people will use this large discussion with tons of ban supports after the discussion should have been closed against me. This is just sad...Elijahandskip (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/ANI discussions (really, this was better off at WP:ANI to begin with) of issues regarding editor conduct are not closed just because of withdrawal of the original complaint. All parties should expect to have their conduct examined. See WP:BOOMERANG.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but a TBan for 6 months is a huge thing. If I get a 2nd warning on top of a TBan for the same thing, that is pure bullying definition... Elijahandskip (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Elijahandskip Drive-by suggestion from an uninvolved editor. You have made your point. Now would be an excellent time for you to drop the stick, walk away, and beginning editing constructively in other topic areas. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    AP2 topic ban imposed (AE)

    IAR close; Elijahandskip accepts the TBAN as imposed and doesn't want discussion. I am INVOLVED and not an admin, but this can be closed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    • Support Elijahandskip has stated they want to work on current events; there are plenty of those that don't involve American politics. Editing in other areas for six months will give them a chance to demonstrate their growth and competence. Grandpallama (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AP2 topic ban for 6 months, an appropriate response to the editor's behavior. Also, has there already been a discussion about their username "Elijah *and* skip" indicating an account used by more than one person? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      They confirm on their user page that they are one person.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the imposed AP2 break is needed, though 6 months feels long to me; I'd be fine with 3 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At first I wondered the same, but this, this, this, and this changed my mind; I now worry, conversely, that 6 months may be too short a time to build and demonstrate the necessary maturity and competence to edit in this area. Grandpallama (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grandpallama: I don't want to cause trouble, but you linked a message I asked to an admin to help me avoid future problems and you call that a problem. That is just sad... Elijahandskip (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed that some users have a strong emotional aversion to the idea of a topic ban or other sanction being imposed. They are more likely to stick around and edit other topics if it's a voluntary decision rather than a ban. Based on their comments above, I wonder if this might be the case here. So what about an alternative: would you be willing to voluntarily stop editing articles related to American politics for a while (say, six months), working on other topics in the meantime? The effect is indeed largely the same, but no sanction would be logged, and there would be no more or less automatic block if you fail to stay away (but, realistically, you'd be bank here in the same position). Just a thought. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this still open? I withdrew the original reason for the noticeboard. This just seems to have turned into a lot of editors who want me banned. I have alreayd been banned and accepted it. Can and admin just close this before more editors make me feel worse than I had to be. (6 support votes after the ban was 100% uncalled for as the discussion should have just been closed after I withdrew and the ban notice was put out. I mean come on now that is ridiculous. (Not the support votes, the fact it was left open for the support votes). Elijahandskip (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I was saying that the ban was more harsh than it needed to be, but if you don't want an "appeal"/discussion of the ban and want this closed it should probably be closed by someone uninvolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Power~enwiki, an appeal is 100% useless and I do deserve the ban. In a few months I might try to appeal, but I have to prove that I can change before appealing. (Also I did appeal but withdrew it. The appeal was for technicality since my 3000+ byte message was posted 1 minute before the ban, so I tried to get it removed so that new very long thing could be taken into consideration. It was denied by the banning admin so I withdrew before it became official.) I just want this discussion to be close as it is now at 8 hours after it should have been closed... Elijahandskip (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ban removal request of Bus stop

    Declined. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As a courtesy, I am posting below a statement from Bus stop from UTRS in which they request their ban to be removed. I make no endorsement in doing so and have no views on the matter. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    From a sourcing point of view there can be no doubt that Einstein was Jewish. But it was determined, based on such policies as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, that the Albert Einstein article should not pointedly state "Einstein was Jewish". The other editors preferred the language "was born into a Jewish family". WP:ONUS tells us: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article...consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". This information was clearly verifiable but consensus determined that its inclusion would not improve the article. I WP:BLUDGEONED at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Einstein_and_Jewishness I should not have argued against a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS which did not want to pointedly state that Einstein was Jewish. The other editors weighing in to that discussion disagreed with the edit I was suggesting and I should have respected their opinion when it became obvious that consensus was against me. While I cannot undo the past I can vow never to do that again. I bludgeoned (WP:BLUDGEONED) the article Talk page and I offer this sincere commitment to not be overly argumentative at article Talk pages again. I am asking that my account be un-blocked so that I may continue to constructively edit Wikipedia. Thank you. User:Bus stop— Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talk • contribs)

    Relevant UTRS. SQLQuery me! 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After their November 2020 AP2 topic ban: "My commitment of course is not to WP:BLUDGEON in the future." After their September 2019 ban from AN: "I commit to no more bludgeoning." Fool me once, fool me twice, but three times? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Bludgeon in excelsis. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose removing site ban - The site ban was only imposed on 19 February . It's much too soon for any consideration of removing the ban. They should come back a minimum of six months from now. If they file another request before then, the community should consider formally imposing a time limit of 1 year before they are eligible for re-instatement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Performance art? Is that quote real: did Bus stop really continue banging on about Einstein and Jewishness? Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I see no reason why we should believe that Bus stop would be capable of avoiding bludgeoning.Doug Weller talk 09:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - from reading all the information about this case I see no reason to believe that Bus stop can be trusted to cease their disruption/bludgeoning so soon after being banned. I agree with BMK, come back in six months and take up the standard offer. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Lift a ban on someone whose response to a discussion about their bludgeoning was to escalate the bludgeoning in the discussion about the bludgeoning to the extent that they had to be blocked from taking any further part in it? And after two previous promises to stop bludgeoning following two previous (and relatively recent) topic bans? And after exhibiting exactly the same behaviour for years without any sign of any willingness or ability to stop? No, Bus stop really needs to learn that there are serious consequences to continuing with this obsessive and disruptive behaviour, and lifting the ban after yet another "Sorry, I won't do it again" will not achieve that. I think we'd need an absolute minimum of the six-month SO period to let the consequences properly sink in. (Oh, and making this request so soon after the ban shows serious bad judgment, in my view, and suggests a failure to reflect properly). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per WP:BLUDGEON. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Asking for a removal of the ban not even 2 weeks after it's implemented? Way too soon, I would agree with BMK about the 6 month wait. My other concern would be that they already have had 2 ban for this same beahvior. It hasn't changed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not concerned people here are going to unban Bus Stop, it's worth stating for the record that this user has sent ArbCom roughly a dozen emails about the block, sometimes two or more a day, demonstrating a complete lack of clue (especially when they wonder why they're getting blocked for spamming from the system when they're spamming the system.) Any declaration that they have learned the meaning of bludgeon should be taken with little faith when their actions demonstrate the opposite. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and as per Beyond My Ken, a minimum of six months before we'll consider an unblock, extending to a year if they violate this restriction. That would apply across all media; UTRS, ArbCom, etc. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose we've heard this story before several times. Take your time off, spend six months not socking or doing anything else and then come back and resubmit under standard offer. Request then would still need to be more convincing than the repeated I won't do it again. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Six months is the absolute minimum. It's clear they haven't learnt anything yet about why they were banned.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Not only a 6 month minimum as suggested, but the request per OTRS is just more example of what got Bus Stop banned in the first place in terms of a combination of bludgeoning, IDHT, and seemingly not having a clue about the reasoning for the ban. --Masem (t) 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks, @331dot:, for making this unban request possible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Wait, multi ArbCom appeals of a CBAN for bludgeoning, saying "I won't bludgeon"? Okey dokey. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The Einstein page wasn't even the problem, it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per everyone else. It is too soon, there is no indication that the behavior has been corrected, etc. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because Bus stop has several times committed to no more bludgeoning, per GorillaWarfare and others above. He sounds convincing now and sounded convincing then, and I do think he meant it all three times — meant it in the moment — but it's getting more and more difficult to believe the bludgeoning will actually stop. Also, asking after a mere two weeks is a little ridiculous, as many have pointed out. Bishonen | tålk 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose because I agree with every comment above. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the block/ban of Bus Stop was correct. If you look at their history, they used to be a constructive article-space contributor. However the current history shows they mainly edit talk pages, for what I would characterize as argumentative entertainment purposes. They are the master of discussion bludgeoning, with many past apologies followed by more bludgeoning. Rinse, repeat.--- Possibly (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bemused. Hard to describe the feeling I got when I looked at my watchlist for the first time in over a week, and Bus stop was at AN again. It seems like a very Wikipedia-style thing to do: look at a thread, see that 17 people have opposed something and none have supported it, and feel oddly compelled to add an additional oppose anyway. I'd close this early - in spite of the sinking feeling that some rule somewhere says it needs to stay open X hours - in order to save the 18th thru 50th Wikipedians from themselves, but someone would likely revert because of The Rules, and then even more time would be wasted arguing about that. So I'd like to gently suggest that no further comment is needed here unless someone supports lifting the ban. I'll start it off, and avoid the impulse to pile on, by summoning all my will power and not casting a vote. Though the impulse to pontificate was harder to resist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Bus stop's IDHT is frankly comical. He really doesn't get it does he? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Falun Gong: 0RR without explanation or expiration date

    A little background before I get to my request: As some of you know, among other topics, I'm a regular over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, particularly topics related to folklore studies. Late 2019, I encountered a huge amount of advertisements from Shen Yun while visiting the US. This featured lots of colorful costumes, featured heavy emphasis on 'tradition', and was heavily marketed as a 'cultural experience'. I soon found that behind this dance company is a new religious movement called Falun Gong, which had not only been aggressively supporting extreme right-wing groups here in Germany by way of its various news outlets (like the The Epoch Times) but also soon started making headlines in the United States in their tremendous support for fringe stuff.

    When I encountered it, somehow English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article made no mention of important topics like Falun Gong and Shen Yun's compound and de facto headquarters, Dragon Springs (as you can see, we now have an entire article on this). The article even somehow managed to avoid referring to Falun Gong as a new religious movement despite a tremendous amount of peer-reviewed academic sources describing the group as exactly that at every turn. These are just a few of the issues from which the article suffered.

    Compiling numerous peer-reviewed sources and media reports, I quickly experienced why scholar James R. Lewis wrote that English Wikipedia's coverage of Falun Gong and its propaganda and media outlets (like Shen Yun and The Epoch Times) appeared to be "little more than mouthpieces for the FLG [Falun Gong] point of view" (2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, p. 81. Cambridge University Press.). The reason why was pretty obvious: These articles have been (and are) absolutely crawling with single-purpose accounts whose core goal is clearly to make pro-FG edits whenever and wherever possible. Some of them have been camped out on these articles for around a decade. They're all too happy to brigade and lawyer away anyone who might want to introduce a source or claim that would not meet the approval of self-created narratives. I've witnessed exactly the sort of behavior Lewis describes in his assessment and the attempts at character assassination and similar I've seen also check out with the various accounts out there by scholars of being harassed and/or threatened when researching the topic.

    Absolutely nothing has been pleasant about any of this. On the up side, these articles have seen major improvements over the course of 2020 and many great editors have since gotten involved, making this sort of brigading and lawyering much more difficult to manage. So, while the SPAs are still now and then making attempts at reverting these articles to their previous states, the old norm appears to have been smashed and the SPAs seem to have lost the field to basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.

    So imagine my surprise a couple days ago when, after signing on as I normally have since 2005, I checked my watchlist, and made a straightforward revert ([60]) only for me to receive a message that I had been blocked from editing for 24 hours by @Guerillero:. As admin Guerillero—whose name I did not recognize—informed me, Guerillero had added me to a special list back in July of 2020. Anyone on Guerillero's list was apparently forbidden from performing any reverts on this page (yes, that's right, 0RR), it is indefinite, and, no, according to Guerillero, he certainly did not need to discuss or explain it. Guerillero did, however, notify me that he had dropped a template on my talk page back in July 2020, during which time I was no doubt being bombarded with the usual harassment from SPAs and missed it or I would have immediately appealed to avoid absurd situations like this one. As I had apparently not reverted anything on that article since July 2020 (or you'd have heard all about it from me at that time), it sure seems like there was never any reason for me to be on this strange list to begin with. I still have no clue why I would be included on this list—the article already has a very visible 1RR policy. Guerillero's block was soon lifted by @Bishonen: and various other admins lended support for the removal ([61]).

    I fail to see how this in any way assists Wikipedia. In fact, stuff like this actively discourages the editors who we really need on these articles. Could someone please remove my name from this ridiculous and arbitrary list so I don't have to deal with this nonsense again? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't comment as-to whether your block was justified, but Falun Gong is an extremely controversial topic visited by many SPAs and an admin-imposed 0RR is justified. 0RR for all editors, not just editors on some list you claim exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "List [I] claim exists"? The list is right here, which I linked to above. The article is set to 1RR. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, I was mistaken. I thought 0RR applied to all editors at Falun Gong, it does not. I think you need to appeal at WP:AE, though I will not stop you if you want to appeal here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bloodofox: You are going about this the wrong way. Discretionary sanctions exist for very good reasons. I have no idea why you were caught up in a 0RR restriction but the fact is that you were. Rather than starting a general discussion regarding your misfortune, you should ask somewhere quiet about how to appeal. The first step of any successful appeal is to work out what happened at the time. Perhaps, to an uninvolved administrator, it did appear there was excessive reverting, and they reasonably concluded that handing out half-a-dozen restrictions was desirable. Try to see it from their point of view (AGF: they are not mad, they are not trying to get you, they would have had a reason). After that, have low-key and polite discussion with the admin about what you would need to do for them to lift the restriction. Point out some of what you said above (fringe, SPAs). Then wait for their reply and politely engage with what they say. I, or others, can say how to proceed if dissatisfied after that but those two steps are very important. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin who made the list, Guerillero, told me to come here or go to AE. I figured I'd come by here first. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The unblock request seems a bit worrying? The request asked for an appeal to be copied to AN/AE and was denied and told to wait until the block was over? Yes, it’d probably have taken longer than 24 hours to reach a consensus to unblock anyway, but this seems effectively like unappealable blocks (minus the IAR unblock). As for the 0RR, is there a good reason for keeping it up? Why was it imposed originally? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's time to lift the 0RR restriction. Background: Guerillero discusses his 0RR sanction of six editors in this ANI thread from July 2020. Guerillero's post is here, stating that he has placed "most everyone involved in the [Falun Gong] article under a 0RR sanction" in an attempt "to keep the article from becoming a mud fight". Perhaps unfortunately, nobody there took him up on his offer to answer questions about these sanctions. The six people are, I think, three from each side, per BF's description above of the sides. So, on Guerillero's part, it looks like an "0RR 'em all indefinitely and let God sort 'em out" approach in what seemed a desperate situation.
    Speaking now only to the sanction of Bloodofox, Guerillero's 0RR sanction notice on BF's page on 27 July 2020 is rather short on information, the only explanation being "edit warring".[62] BF had made one revert at Falun Gong on 27 July, one revert on 7 july, and one on 5 July, all with explanatory edit summaries. So, clearly the sanction was not for edit warring in the classic sense. Was BF supposed to have got consensus on talk before reverting to Binksternet on 27 July? If so (and if not so, how?), it seems quite draconian to give him an indefinite 0RR restriction for violating the somewhat notorious "consensus required" condition (a condition I myself would never set), especially without any warning or recommendation to self-revert. The "mud fight" issue and Guerillero's post in the ANI thread makes it more understandable; still, seen from BF's point of view, not really understandable at all. Apparently he either rode right over it, or subsequently forgot about it, because he violated it by a revert on 28 February and was promptly blocked for 24 hours by Guerillero, again without any previous request to self-revert. I lifted this block, although it came with the pomp of a "reminder to administrators" that I might "at the discretion of ArbCom" be desysopped if I did, since it's an AE block. (Guerillero has however made it clear he has no interest in taking that road.) Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • Firstly, the user is entitled to appeal any AE sanction here, and personaly, were I ever hit, that's exactly where I would do so as well. I also get irked by claims that individuals receiving short-sanctions should either be obliged to appeal while the block is on-running, or wait until until it's over - both are, to me, unacceptable limitations. Given the circumstances (that is, long after the restriction was imposed) and non-problematic nature, I feel an immediate 24hr block was unnecessary. I also don't feel this sanction (as vs the base 1RR in place on the article) is beneficial and also advise it being lifted. A good case could be made for the removal of all the 0RR on the page, but I don't know enough about the status of the other editors to make an evidenced call on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For over a month, what would happen on Falun Gong is some form of Alice would make a controversial change, Bob would revert it, Clara would revert Bob back to Alice's version, Daniel would revert Clara, 24 hours will have passed so Alice reverts Daniel back to her version and the article would be full protected my myself or El_C. After a few go rounds of this and having to indef full protect the article, I placed the most common parties of this under a 0RR to break the back of this behavior. I was able to unprotect the article and it worked until 28 February 2021 when the pattern started up again. My feeling was that a 0RR would be better than a topic ban, because it would allow people to edit the article but stop the edit war. This may have been an over step on my part, but I did it to try to keep a contentious topic stable. As for my block, I have no intention of dragging Bishonen to arbcom over it. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would have no strong objections to lifting the 0RR on the non-SPAs on my list. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I also think this would be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good to me Nosebagbear (talk)

    Since I was pinged, a couple of notes. I don't think I noticed at the time that Guerillero converted my one-week full protection to an indefinite full protection, then downgraded that to ECP, accompanied by the aforementioned 0RR sanctions to select users. But I don't think it matters (my knowledge of any of that). I trust Guerillero's judgment, overall, in any case. Also noting that WP:AFLG is probably one the AE topic areas I'm least familiar with (to the best of my knowledge, have never logged anything on that front, which says a lot). Finally, to Bish's point about CR — I tend to view it as the nuclear option (same with EBRD, except it having more radiation fallout, IMO). I think I've maybe added CR to pages once or twice (or three times max) during the past year, which, again, says a lot. El_C 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    On abuse of administrators

    Just to note here, that in the last 12 hours I got a few replies from two unrelated blocked users, all addressed to me personally, with both users suggesting whom I should have sex with (one repeatedly suggested my mother, and another one some gentleman whom I have never heard about). All these edits have been revision-deleted, so there is nothing more to do here, but when we are going to have the next discussion on admins who are doing whatever they want and get unlimited power and are only interested in this power, and that everybody wants to become admin but is deterred by RFA, please remember that what the most active admins experience is daily verbal abuse. And I still consider myself lucky that this was confined onwiki, and none of the users (yet) tried to contact me off-wiki with these suggestions. This happened to me in the past as well. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I know. I come to think of the hostility that is every day shown towards teachers, policemen, guards, and other people entrusted with keeping some kind of order. Somehow teaching as a profession helps me put it into perspective. I will always be appreciated by many but hated and despised by a few both as a teacher and as an admin.--Berig (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some administrators who work in highly controversial areas of the encyclopedia are subjected to constant harassment and abuse. I try to stay away from the most controversial topics, but have still had my fair share of abuse and harassment. "Self hating Jew" comes up about as often as "Christians" declaring that I will burn in hell. The only thing that really bothers me are credible threats to murder my granddaughter, accompanied by photos of her scraped off of Facebook. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this on-wiki stuff is not really serious (I have got more serious threats by e-mail, and had to report them to the police, but not in the last few days), however, this certainly does not motivate me in any way. Again, there is nothing to really do about this. I am not going to resign my tools because of this kind of abuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a proverb that I find some consolation in: "it is never too late to give up". We do this voluntarily, and as long as it feels worthwile we stay.--Berig (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I spend a lot of my time trying to keep two sides apart, and retain neutrality, regarding Northern Ireland topics. I get called everything by both sides constantly. Water off a ducks back at this point. Unfortunate though that people think it's acceptable to do that sort of thing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Coincidentally, on Slate yesterday: The Tensions Behind Wikipedia’s New Code of Conduct Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In your preferences on the User Profile tab, there's a check-box for "Allow emails from brand-new users". Filtering on offensive words could lead to the Scunthorpe problem. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've chatted to GorillaWarfare about off-wiki harassment in the past, and they have advised me in a couple of cases where I have had abuse that the WMF are looking into it. Unfortunately, if somebody scrapes pictures of you off social media and dumps them on an attack site, there isn't really much they can do if it's not illegal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry you had to deal with this, Ymblanter. I've thankfully only had rare "mid-level" issues, normally it's just the casual angst and insults for me. Beyond the Scunthorpe problem, people also use emails to me to raise other individuals' problematic edits, including duplicating some language used. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes I wonder if you all should receive some sort of stipend or other compensation for all the abuse and harassment you are subjected to on a regular basis. Given that this is a volunteer project and that adminship carries even greater responsibilities than simply editing, I cannot imagine how anyone would willingly put themselves through such hardship in addition to their existing career without seeing some form of recognition -- positive recognition -- beyond just a "keep up the good work chaps" from the folks who actually draw a salary.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I got an "angry" message earlier today from an experienced user about how I needed to wait for consensus before acting on a normal ANI report. Only if it falls within DS would I be allowed to act singlehandedly, I was told in no uncertain terms. Attached with that message was an "overt threat" to either take me to ArbCom or —and this is new— they'd run their own WP:RfA, somehow (?). I just gotta quote the comment in full: Fuck your collapsing. Without discretionary sanctions, you do need to wait for consensus. I will either start an ARBCOM case against you or file my own RFA to get my own adminship if you disagree. I will not reply to you or anything else on this thread until at least 2 other admins comment on this topic (diff). Anyway, yeah, I've been threatened with an RfAR enough times, but never an RfA! Don't think it would serve as a good mission statement for one's sought adminship, though. El_C 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be a truly entertaining RFA, to be honest with you.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I can't think that making lurid statements and threatening vexatious Arbitration requests is going to go over well at RfA.... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, my point got lost in my shouting. I was trying to say that admins should generally wait for consensus in controversial cases, though counter-intuitively that isn't the case for the most contentious areas (DS), because the cost of inaction is higher there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's another editor that will always get an oppose from me at an RfA. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions for the candidate
    Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
    1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
    A: Gaining second-mover advantage over El_C. Levivich harass/hound 22:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish I had some advice or something more productive to say, but I don't. All I can say is that I know how you feel, and it's absolutely unacceptable what many editors have to go through for choosing to spend their limited free time providing a free source of knowledge. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of User:Geo Swan

    The block is endorsed. Since this was not an appeal by GeoSwan, but rather an administrator asking for feedback per the blocking policy there is no community ban of Geo Swan. For those interested in this issue, discussion remains open at Commons. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Geo Swan (talk · contribs) created Dan Trotta (now deleted), apparently as a result of an off-wiki dispute they had with the subject of that article. HJ Mitchell deleted that and gave an only warning, with the note that he'd probably had blocked indefinitely if he'd been able to explain himself during the fall-out. Geo Swan continued editing today, without even acknowledging what had happened. You may see some of the background at User talk:Imissdisco. I don't necessarily want an indefinite block on Geo Swan, but I do want them to account for themselves for what HJ Mitchell called "outrageous". Drmies (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Assessment' and rehash Geo Swan is a well liked editor who has done a lot of work in BLP's. Sometimes, unfortunately, he does things he should not. I'll try to link to last years debacle where he kept sealioning and bludgeoning and forum shopping Geo Swan insisted on the inclusion over of content that had been removed about a non notable person who wished to not be endangered by having her name broadcast all over the internet. (Part's in my talk archives.) I would recommend a WP:TBAN on BLP's indefinitely. If this were Geo Swan's first misstep, we would need to extend greater leeway. Unfortunately, Geo Swan has shown again a shocking lack of restraint or good judgment where BLP's are concerned, especially in a user for GS's tenure. (afkb) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to relevant ANI thread I referenced. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the article was started in the middle of a commons deletion request, where there was a disagreement between these two parties. –xenotalk 15:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:xeno, yes, thank you--I forgot to mention the business on Commons, in my rush to get to class. I appreciate it. I don't know if they took action over there, but I did post a note on their admin board last night. And let me take the opportunity to add that I asked Harry via email about why he blocked in the first place (cause I didn't see it initally), and we discussed the matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Re. Commons, well, as far as defending the project's reputation goes, they clearly considered blocking the BLP complainant the best way forward. Although that probably says more about Commons' priorities than anything else. ——Serial 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I write this, the article has been copied onto a site called wikialpha (What is that site? Does it host attack pages?). I can find a few sources about Dan Trotta here, but I don't think it would survive an AfD. So I don't think it meets WP:G10, but I think HJ Mitchell can legitimately invoke WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:IAR and delete it. If the subject of a BLP does not want an article about them, and there is not extensive coverage to write about them sensibly, do not create one.
    As for Geo Swan, I think they should come here and explain themselves, then we'll see what happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They can't, they're blocked... GiantSnowman 16:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing obviously negative in the deleted version of Dan Trotta, but the Commons discussion does put it in a troubling light: creating a Wikipedia article about a non-public figure who clearly doesn't want one, to make a point about who "owns" our coverage of living people, would be a bright-line violation of WP:BLP and the Harassment policy. This is a good block, that should stay in place at least until Geo Swan has explained himself. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close thread. There is nothing to discuss here at this point. We cannot review the indef block of Geo Swan until they appeal it. And as long as they are blocked, there is no need for any further action against Geo Swan. Any review of the deletion belongs at WP:DRV. Sandstein 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Drmies is just following the advice at WP:WHYBLOCK, After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. – Joe (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't notice the thread was started by the blocking admin. Still, I decline to review a block as long as we don't know whether the blocked user desires such a review. Sandstein 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GS indicated on Commons that they knew it would be a dick move on their part if they created it, and yet they did, days later. I'd say this is a good block. Full quote from GS If this image was in use, say in a brand new wikipedia article on Dan Trotta, we would almost certainly decline your request for a courtesy deletion, because it was in use. For about 30 seconds I considered starting a nice fair article on Dan Trotta, but I didn't do so because it might seem like a dickish move on my part. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)CUPIDICAE💕 16:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be happy to change to a partial block for article space so they can discuss the matter here.16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Leave thread open. I don't think Wikipedia should be used by its editors to harass people. That's just wrong on so many levels. There is much yet to discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock on the basis that they reply here only - Editing anywhere else would result in indef. If after a week no response then I guess reblock for x amount of weeks/months. Certainly agree with the above his actions have been unacceptable and he needs to do some talking. Sweeping it under the rug helps no one . –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse as per SN - At the time of writing the above I felt they should be given a chance to explain why they did what they did but I guess no amount of talking / sorries will ever help fix the damage and hurt they've caused. We're all here to write articles - Not use the website as a way to weponise people. It's unacceptable and shouldn't ever be tolerated period. –Davey2010Talk 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one should even be thinking of unblocking GeoSwan for any reason. They have literally done the worst thing a Wikipedian can do—weaponize the project against a non-Wikipedian, who in another theatre would be termed a civilian. This is one of the worst offences on the books (second, I guess, to off-wiki harassment). This represents a fundamental loss of trust on GS's part, and our response needs to be proportionate to that. Support indef block; also support standard offer, which should be the minimum on the table. As noted above, they knew perfectly well they shouldn't create the article—but they did. The project, to put it politely, needs to protect itself from that kind of dearth of judgment.
      It's bizarre people are talking about partial blocks, for behaviour with such obvious real-life and potentially legal implications. If GS wants to say anything here, he can do what every other blocked user who still has their talk page access: write there to be transposed here—as Drmies original block instructs. ——Serial 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Oh, I'm fully cognizant of the legal ramifications. GS and I have gone a few rounds on BLP before. IMHO, they'll be fortunate if this does not wind up at Trust and Safety. My partial block suggestion was to allow them to respond here. Due to my past interaction, I cannot credibly advocate a CBAN, but your points are well taken. And I prefer to think of myself as "unique" rather than "bizarre". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent block done here. This honestly is quite possibly the worst thing you can do on Wikipedia to someone else. There's no call for it, none what so ever. I'm in the camp of giving people second chances, but this one...I don't know. There are so many ramifications that could come from something like this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block That argument on Commons was ugly and unseemly. And then to retaliate by writing an article about someone who made it clear they didn't want the attention? That's way, way over the line. Repulsive behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. This is bad on so many levels. If you're looking for policy violations to cite, WP:BLP, WP:POINT, WP:INVOLVED, WP:HARRASS all come to mind. My only question here is what the off-wiki aspect was. Are we talking about the spat on commons about deleting the image (which would be bad enough), or was there some additional IRL interaction (which would be far worse). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it started on Commons, then slopped over to en.wikipedia without IRL interaction. HJ Mitchell warned Geo Swan: "Do not write Wikipedia articles about people with whom you are in dispute elsewhere (...)" which, I assume, Drmies interpreted or paraphrased as 'off-wiki' here. I might be wrong, and I don't think it will change the outcome of this thread either way. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sluzzelin, I actually don't know if the online dispute was the one on Commons--Imissdisco's comment (on their talk page), "GeoSwan created this page after an argument we had online", doesn't specify, but worse, Geo Swan didn't take that opportunity to explain. In fact, they didn't take any opportunity to explain, at all, and went and filed that huge report that would draw anyone's attention at AIV, which is where I found it. So, in addition to Harry's comment, "do not use your superior skills as an editor to get one up in a dispute", I would say that Geo Swan also abused his superior knowledge of the processes on Wikipedia, and the temperament and likely responses of the editors and admins who, like me, are inclined to look at a set of edits like Imissdisco's as just vandalism, essentially. Note Geo Swan didn't even post on Imissdisco's talk page: they just let the Recent changes patrollers and others handle the matter via templated warnings. And I fell for it too, with my block--but I made it a partial block to just stop the disruption of the article which wasn't obvious to me as an attack page or a negative bio. So that's even more incriminating: it's an abuse of writing skills and of process. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block It's a willful violation of COI used to rebuke another individual. If they do in a reasonably neutral fashion, then they've not burnt their bridges irrevocably, but it does warrant the block. I have no complaints if someone wants to unblock under the sole condition of commenting here. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are unblocked a BLP topic ban needs to be considered in the light of this incident and last year's refusal to drop the stick over getting the name of an individual connected to Derek Chauvin into Wikipedia, contrary to WP:BLPNAME.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just thinking, this block seems to be connected to an isolated incident. A siteblock seems punitive, what's preventative about this action? It seems the user has moved on and isn't going to repeat this kind of behavior again. Heymid (contribs) 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Link to relevant ANI thread I referenced. Not an isolated incident. This linked ANI thread is but one. It references a thread on my talk. It is quite comprehensive in addressing the matter at hand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A professional entertainer is not a private individual, and I see nothing in the deleted article so scandalous as to constitute an attack page that would justify deletion at the subject's request except going through a BLP discussion. (I see Drmies is of the same opinion). As for the deletion, and protection. HJ Mitchell, you did the deletion and protection. Do you truly consider it an attack page? Or as unsourced negative information? I'm not commenting on any other aspects. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A screenwriter nor director is really not a "public" figure even if they may be a well-documented name as these are behind-the-scenes roles. Some are, people like JJ Abrams or Vince Gilligan who frequently appear in front of fans and the camera, but there's no indication the person Geo Swan wrote up had similar public presence. We should present they are not a public figure unless that can be readily documented, and as such, BLP protections should be held to their utmost --Masem (t) 20:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The issue here is not whether the article should have been deleted or not. We were dealing with a member of the general public here who knew nothing of our internal processes or policies, had a legitimate concern about their privacy, and was obviously not happy. Whether you're an admin or not, when you're interacting with somebody like that, you're acting as a representative of the project. Sometimes that takes the thick skin of a rhinoceros and the patience of an ox. If you don't possess those qualities, you shouldn't be in that role. It seems like Geo Swan did everything they could to deliberately make a delicate situation worse. They correctly identified an action which would be inadvisable, then they went ahead and performed that action. That's the core problem here, and that's what Geo needs to explain. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • To me this looks pretty obviously like a bad faith article creation (dubiously notable as well) in order to justify keeping the image. The situation seems to have been inflamed by Geo Swan's assertion that the user was an imposter of Trotta, (though I suppose that is highly unlikely, but possible) raising some similar requests on Commons from photos uploaded from the same photo group, 1 2. Strange hill to pick to die on. Connormah (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block, mainly beause this is the second time there's been an issue with this. In the George Floyd - related issue, GeoSwan's additions of a BLPNAME were revdeleted and they were advised not to take the issue to AN or ANI because it was a high-traffic page [63]. What did they do? Took it to ANI. Here, they created a page for a barely-notable person (non-notable IMO) just because they'd had a disagreement with them on the Commons page. There, GeoSwan said themselves that it would be a dickish move to create the article [64]. Then, guess what? They created it. If GeoSwan is to be unblocked, I would expect it to be with a complete BLP topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The only interaction I have had with Geo Swan is at Talk:Hani Ramadan where he chastised me for removing Jihad Watch as a source in a BLP article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeesh. Another example, though somewhat less problematic on its own: It looks like after this other deletion discussion was started by a subject of a photo (not Trotta), Geo Swan responded by immediately putting the image in-use on Wikidata (where there's less of a notability threshold) thus removing the possibility of a courtesy deletion.
      I get that it can be frustrating for article subjects to say "please don't use that properly licensed photo of me, taken in a public place where I knew my photo was being taken, in a country where consent isn't required ... because I don't like it", and that in many cases there's often nothing really to be done other than suggest they release a better one (preferably with more guidance to help them to do so than in the threads I've been reading). But in those cases where it's not in use, or when a better image can be used, let's remember to err on the side of decency? Creating an article (or even a Wikidata item) in response to a request for courtesy deletion is a weird kind of antagonism (intended or not). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, if one of y'all knows anything about Commons or has power there, I'm not happy with that's happening there. Taivo blocked Imissdisco and is unwilling to reconsider, and I'm wondering if the Commons move on Geo Swan's part, which started this all, isn't a good reason for them over there to do something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standard Operating Procedure for Commons, unfortunately. There are some good people there, but a significant number simply don't live in the real world when it comes to things like concern for BLP subjects. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block per those above. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Geo Swan, whose comments prior to creating the attack page indicate they know what is wrong with the way they acted. It would be unfortunate if we were to lose a valuable contributor because they were unwilling to admit wrongdoing or make some changes in behaviour. I recommend in future writing your comment without posting it, and coming back to it when in a different mood whenever things begin to get heated—we always know deep down that what we are doing is not good before we press "Publish changes", but sometimes our emotions get the better of us. — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GS block review epilogue

    This has gone pearshaped. Please start a new thread at ANI referencing this one and this extension if you wish to seek a CBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    - Hi sorry I know I'm not supposed to wade in but I just wanted to say thank you to those who helped me with this. I'm definitely not happy with some of the language I used, but I was desperate and felt completely powerless. I made some mistakes, but all I wanted was to garner a bit of control over what I felt was a retaliatory action. Sorry to have made more work for you all, I can't believe this started because of a stupid photo. This is supremely embarrassing. I appreciate everyone's kindness and patience with this.

    Am I being paranoid by asking about possible retaliation by Geo towards me for my part in this? Probably an impossible question to answer. It's just this has me a bit spooked. I know he's posted about me on wikialpha, so it just has me wondering. Anyway. Should be great fodder for my next pilot ;) Imissdisco (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be included in the record here that a user named Geo Swan recreated the article at wiki alpha, which I won’t link to. This is to make it clear in any attempt at an unblock request that (presumably, could be a false flag) GS has continued this behavior off wiki. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave Imissdisco some I'm-not-a-lawyer info. Hopefully that will get worked out. Just in case it was GS, (Don't think it's their style. Could be a Joe Job.) I called upon them to get it taken down. Hoping for the best. To my knowledge, GS has not yet returned. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
    It will be interesting to see if GeoSwan abused his position at Wikialpha by uploading that article. But seeing as how he is—ooh, get this!—admin, CU and 'crat there, I think that's unlikely. I also think, needless to say, that since GS crossed the Rubicon, as it were, by weaponizing an external website in pursuit of an on-wiki feud, a C-ban discussion would be wholly appropriate. ——Serial 16:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Ernie, Interesting. I found that, and blindly assumed wikialpha was a site like Deletionpedia that scraped articles before they got deleted, or just a straight Wikipedia mirror that happened to grab a snapshot at the right time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (long, protracted sigh. followed by an obscenity) ( another sigh) (clears throat) It was my impression in our dispute last year that GS has a poor understanding of the potential legal ramifications of their "boldness" regarding BLP. I wish them well in their editing away from this project. But there comes a time when "boldness" becomes recklessness. I hope they do not find this out the hard way. And I feel for anyone harmed by their recklessness. Gad! Here's a thought. Were they trying to uncover the name of Chauvin's wife for a page at Wikialpha? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WA actively encourages their users to browse the articles listed for deletion here on Wikipedia, and even have a Save Article feature to preserve and publish them there. I'd also note that on GS' discussion page on WA, he was asked to delete an article in December 2020 on WA, at the request of the subject, and on that very same day, edited the WP article that mentions that subject, ensuring the links still worked, and added archive links as well. It doesn't appear he originally added the content here on WP, but is it a coincidence that he suddenly took an interest here, making sure the links worked, and adding archive links. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no question that it is the same editor in both places. From the time stamps, he actually created the article at WA, and then copied it here to WP. I agree that this kind of harassment on and off wiki merits a C-ban discussion. Slp1 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check the wikialpha history, it lists Geo Swan as the creator and editor of the page. It's him/her. They edited it just yesterday morning, in fact. I guess this could be an imposter but that seems strange Imissdisco (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This has gone far afield of what I originally intended-- a post hoc update. The original thread was to confirm the block. It is now moving in the unintended direction of a CBAN. Please start a new thread at ANI, referencing this discussion and extension If a CBAN is really something you want. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request topic ban for User:Asad29591

    Asad29591 joined in September 2020 and has been POV-pushing (In this sock investigation GeneralNotability said the user is "certainly" POV-pushing, "but that should be addressed in other fora"). Edits are supporting his religious beliefs (See Orthodox Baháʼí Faith and Baháʼí divisions for background), which is fine, but edits have been far from adhering to policy. I recommended reviewing policy on his talk page in September and October.

    I've brought policies to his attention and repeatedly asked him to review NPOV (See here, here, here, and many edit summaries). His responses have been incoherent and kind of belligerent. On January 15 he asked the teahouse for advise: "I have noticed that my edits are being reverted by a editor without giving me a valid reason for the same." and that the editor (me) was trying to "supress my my point".

    He typically edits every day or two. I have reverted most of his edits. I think he honestly believes he is in the right and being persecuted (an honest review of histories and talk pages will reveal he is not). It has not really bothered me because of the infrequent editing, but I think the edit warring and months of inability to improve deserves a topic ban for maybe a month. Editing pages unrelated to his beliefs could improve the quality of his contributions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFPP backlog

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


    There is a backlog of 25+ requests at WP:RFPP. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by Woody and Ritchie. For the record, the statement "There is a backlog at RFPP" is pretty much a tautology (that might be a good thing, because a few hours to see if things continue is not a bad thing). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ian Fleming infobox feud

    Closed by Wugapodes with a detailed and thoughtful explanation Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could I ask an uninvolved admin to close the RFC Talk:Ian Fleming#Should there be an infobox?. It's been 30 days, and I've had to full-protect the article for 24 hours (see above thread) after editors are edit-warring over the infobox, and I was pinged to the discussion, so I'd rather somebody else did it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Clear bias from the Praxidicae and Izno

    This is going nowhere and is likely to end up in a WP:BOOMERANG for the OP if they keep this up. Closing before that happens. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Addendum Due to continued hostilities, Cullen 328 Connorguy99 blocked for 72. It kept going, so I removed TPA. There is a parallel thread at ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC):[reply]

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


    The fact that I have been singled out and blocked as a result of edit warring, which I admit to, by Praxidicae when others have exceeded well over three revert limits and escaped even a warning, is disgusting. The following users all made far more that three reverts during the edit warring and haven't even been warned; User:WikiFlame50 (9 edits), User:DarkGlow (7 edits) and User:RM-Taylor (6 edits). WikiFlame50 actually enlisted RM-Taylor to join in the war on their behalf, and then began removing information that I had posted from RM-Taylor's talk page. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I am completely biased against editors who revert other people 32 times on articles about shitty soap operas. Block me. CUPIDICAE💕 00:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, hot take bro. I'm not an admin. That evil admin Izno blocked you. You're lucky it wasn't indefinite but since you insist on digging this hole, I'd like to propose an indefinite block given this user has edit warred across a variety of articles and 32. 32 reverts. It's insanely disruptive and this editor doesn't appear to get it. CUPIDICAE💕 00:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers will be interested in User talk:Connorguy99#March 2021 2 and WP:AN3#User:Connorguy99 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Partial blocked 48h) for background to this complaint. --Izno (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can try to demean people all you like by calling it a "shitty soap opera", but others would demean how upset you are over a handful of edits. Now that a rather foul-mouthed confession has been offered, I want to know what is going to be done about this bias. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added User:Izno to this complaint. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I firmly believe no action should be taken against these users for “bias” as they only fulfilled responsibility in fixing a dire situation. WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DarkGlow you are nearly at double digits if you consider your reverts from both pages, and WikiFlame50 you are in the 20s! And WikiFlame50 encouraged a friend to help him spam revert, so I consider their friend's reverts as their burden too - bringing them close to 30 reverts. Yet only I am warned? Connorguy99 (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you should have been reported for edit warring a long time ago,and received a lengthy block. Bluster isn't a valid defense. The discussion is closed for your own good. Drop it. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Automatic (Blind) reversion of sockpuppet edits

    producing more heat than light. --Jayron32 13:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I noticed several edits on my watchlist that were within minutes and reversions of a user who it turned out is a sockpuppet. When I queried, I was told that the edits can be reverted on sight, even if it reintroduces bad edits. I was pointed to the banning policy which says it can be reverted on sight. However, the "exceptions" state, "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons." Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits So which is it, revert on sight no matter what, or be smart about it? Here's the huge list of reversions, [65] See this one where it reintroduces a BLP violation: [66] Sir Joseph (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor involved User:Watchlonly is a sockpuppet of the prolific puppetmaster User:יניב הורון, whose SPI archive can be found here, with its extensive list of socks. Per WP:3X, this editor is de facto banned from Wikipedia, which means that every single edit they made should never have been made. On the theory that it's more likely that puppetmasters might stop socking if we didn't continually reward them by allowing their edits to stand, I frequently revert as many edits made by prolific sockmasters as I can. If asked about it, my standard response is that any editor in good standing can restore anything I've reverted if they think the edit is worthwhile, and by doing so taking personal responsibility for the edit, without the least objection from me. This is allowed per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF:
    "Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5.".
    I explained this to Sir Joseph on my talk page, but they decided to come here anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If one of the edits I reverted restored a BLP violation, and Sir Joseph noticed it, the proper response on their part would have been to notify me in one of the three messages they posted to my talk page, [67] and I would have corrected the problem immediately. Instead, their battlegroundy response was to file an AN report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is on you to not reintroduce a BLP, which is why you shouldn't blindly mass revert hundreds of edits. I don't have a battleground response, I'm just asking if the exception policy doesn't apply and we should, as you say, be allowed to revert on sight. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the onus is on the puppetmaster not to edit here in the first place. The onus on you is if you see I've made a bad edit, to either inform me of it so I can correct it, or correct it yourself and them inform me of it. What it does not call for is blowing up a trivial situation iinto an AN report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but posting a "query" on AN instead of working with me to correct errors is indeed a battlegroundy response. You posted two comments on my talk page, got two responses, never mentioned any specific problems which needed to be corrected, and then your third comment was that you had posted here. That's hardly working to fi a problem before coming to the noticeboards, that's trying to get someone into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to Wiki policy, see the "exceptions" section of the policy you quote. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So Wikipolicy says you shouldn't try to fix a problem with another editor before coming to the noticeboards? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. That's why I came to AN to ask the question. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There wouldn't be a "pissing match" if you had simply come to my page and said "Hey, I see where your reverting the edits of a sock, but did you know that in these edit X, Y and Z, you restored a BLP, or restored a typo or whatever." But you didn't do that, did you? You never gave me the chance to fix any problems you saw, you just wanted to make trouble for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Final comment to you, hopefully. That's exactly the point. The onus, as per policy, is not for someone to go through your mass reversions to see if all are OK. The onus is on you to see if they're OK before reverting. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But when you did find problems, you didn't tell me what they were so I could fix them, which would have been the collegial thing to do. Instead, you saved them up for your AN report in order to bolster your attempt to get me in trouble. This entire report is a sizzling piece of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, for which Sir Joseph should be trouted, at least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I pasted the "exceptions" part in my post.
    You quote the sentence but don't quote the exceptions part.
    Here it is again:
    This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.
    Your reversions reintroduced typos, vandals, and BLP and other false statements. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, it's just a difference in priorities. Revert it if that's your thing. Take edits as they are if that's your thing. If someone reverts a sock and the revert introduces an error, fix it. A lot of time being wasted on a sock here it seems. WP:RBI and all that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally in favor of mass reversion of edits by banned users, but should also try to look for BLP vios being restored. If you miss some say sorry and correct it and move on. And yes, tell the person they missed it on such and such edit. nableezy - 04:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Best revert every edit....don't give the editor a sense that a portion of their edits will stand because of sheer volume. Make it clear to them that there is no point editing here because of the community sanctions and that every edit will not stand so don't try.Moxy- 04:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If their version stands eventually, even if it's reverted and subsequently restored, they get the sense that they did something successful. We must decide which is more important: correctly identifying Sara Netanyahu as Bibi's wife and not his cow, or discouraging sockpuppetry. 147.161.13.172 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The views of the sockpuppet are not important, that's part of the "I" from WP:RBI. What's important is the time and efforts of productive editors. Dealing with sockpuppets can be tiresome and long work (Beyond My Ken was dealing with over 100 affected articles), and we do not want policies and practices that add to this burden. Agree with nableezy, if something is missed correct it and move on. CMD (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If a sockpuppet is making good edits, the best thing to do for the project is to talk to them and try to convince them to come in from the cold. The endless game of Whac-A-Mole is a waste of time for everyone. Levivich harass/hound 07:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Apart from ordinary vandalism and incompetence and the occasional PoV SPA, I would say that the vast majority of editors who get blocked or banned make quality edits to Wikipedia. The sanctions that are placed on them are due to behavioral problems, not -- for the most part -- because of bad edits. Any editor who has been indef blocked or banned can ask for clemency and a return to the fold, and they will (usually) be given a fair hearing by the community -- indeed we have the WP:Standard offer as part of our normal processes -- but the impetus to do so must come from them. We cannot be in the position of begging people to return after misbehaving badly enough to be chucked out, doing so would make a total mockery of the idea that sanctions act to protect the encyclopedia from damage. Let a puppet master have a real change of heart, and decide that it's more important to them to contribute to the project legitimately then it is to continue to play at sockpuppetry -- and I suspect that it's like an online game to many of them -- and make their case to the community. Until they do, and the community decides to give them another chance, they remain beyond the pale and are not deserving of our leniency, especially when, like יניב הורון, they come back again and again and again and again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And if Sara's article says that she is Bibi's wife, that's a win at יניב הורון's game. It encourages him to continue next time, and he may succeed at getting more edits ultimately being kept. 147.161.8.176 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph, will you please explain why you did not discuss the problem with Sara Netanyahu with Beyond My Ken before bringing the matter to this noticeboard? Wouldn't that have been the collaborative thing to do? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought the matter to ask the question, not necessarily about one edit, of which there were a few that were false. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, a bit in-transit right now, so writing somewhat in haste, but what is up with this IP vandal above (diff) commenting on this conversation (twice)? Am I the only one who picked up on that? El_C 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When a sock has made a large number of edits it seems to me unpractical to check every edit on a case-by-case basis, as well as having the effect of punishing the victims of long-term abuse. I think BMK's mass reversion is acceptable, though less optimal than checking for BLP violations if they have the time. — Bilorv (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When someone cares so little about the project that they have used at least 55 different socks, we don't want them "in from the cold". We want them to bugger off and stay gone. I would still look quickly at their edits before reverting them, but with little empathy. The best way to deal with edits that are actually good is to take responsibility for them by reverting twice. Zerotalk 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Another fire-and-forget comment. I'm not saying Sir Joseph is easy to get along with, just using my last interaction with him as an example (here), but this is a totally legitimate matter to query admins about on the admin board. They did not mention BMK in their OP. It's just a general query. So, I don't understand the vehemence against with which they are told to resolve it with BMK, somehow. What is there to resolve between the two of them right now? They had a conversation on BMK's talk page (direct link), but Sir Joseph wanted further input on how to correctly approach this sock and socks, in general. End of story. Also, Levivich, this notorious sock —which in this particular iteration was fuckin' EC'd— is probably too far gone to save, certainly in the usual way. But who knows. Maybe one day...? Seems unlikely, though. El_C 14:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BMK wasn't mentioned by name, but Sir Joseph directly linked to BMK's contributions as the edits in question. Those are essentially the same thing. Grandpallama (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "this notorious sock" now part of Levivich's full title? "Dangit Levivich, This Notorious Sock, 5th Baron Sockington" SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 14:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still here, so I'll follow up quickly. So what? Sir Joseph isn't asking for action or even an admonishment against BMK. They can query a general question that pertains to their dispute. There isn't some sort of invisible DR forcefield preventing it from being a legit query. Again, this is a non-issue. El_C 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. If you just want to ask about policy, you post here without Sir Joseph's final two sentences. When you include those final two sentences, it's not just an innocent query anymore. (C'mon, El C, asking admins to look at a huge list of reversions is more than just seeking a policy clarification.) Grandpallama (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Grandpallama, that is not a connection I draw. I, for one, don't see how that automatically translates into a request to warn or act against BMK. Whose approach here was right, as far as I can tell. Certainly, edits from such notorious socks are to be reverted on-sight. If there are occasional casualties (even serious BLP ones, like here), that's just the cost of this business. Yes, it's good to maybe peek to see that all is well, with this or that page subject to such mass reversion, but depending on the volume, that may not be practical. I really don't know if there's much more to this than that. //Out the door. El_C 15:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, I'm not bringing this because of a person, I'm bringing this query because of a policy and the exception to that policy to see what the best way to deal with it is. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C You know I have great respect for you, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Sir Joseph came to my talk page about this issue, but never mentioned any specific problem, instead saving that for his "policy query" here. The link he posted here changed the entire nature of the report from an inquiry about policy into a report about another editor's behavior, and the fact that he didn't mention me by name in the test of the report is not relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK thanks, and it's fine that we agree to disagree, but as an uninvolved admin, I don't consider this to be a lapse on Sir Joseph's part (and, again, noting that whenever such lapses are exhibited on his part, I'm not one to shy away from pointing these out). El_C 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I too revert all (known) sock edits on sight, and I work on the General Ripper principle when it comes to reverting these edits - "if in doubt, shoot first then ask questions afterward. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness" And per Zero0000 - sometimes revert the revert if it's actually a good edit, but these are few and far between. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I happen on this kind of blanket reversion of socks, and see that some of the reversions actually made the article worse, I undo them with edit summaries such as "restoring last version by X" (where X is not the sock, this is only possible, when the sock reverted a bad edit done immediately before their edit) or I write a descriptive edit summary such as "fixing typo", "restoring referenced content" or whatever, but I try to neither mention the sock (whose edit I'm actually reinstating) nor the blanket-reverter (whose edit I'm actually undoing). I just did this with five of the ca. 130 sock-reversions talked about here. It's takes a bit more time (and I didn't check every single edit), but it's the only proper way I can think of performing this trade-off between doing what's right for the article in particular and doing what's right for the encyclopedia in general. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^This is what I do, or would do, the few times I've run into it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We see this discussion a few times a year and it's always the same arguments. Yes, policy says that you can blind revert everything if you so choose, but a skilled editor *should* look at each edit individually and if reverting the edit makes the encyclopedia worse (ie: introduces factual inaccuracies or BLP violations), then really it should just be left alone. We aren't slaves to the revert tool nor are we more virtuous if we cut our noses off to spite our faces, all in the name of fighting sock puppets. We can and should use our judgement. If you revert an edit an it introduces a BLP violation or other issue, you own that mistake because you choose to introduce it into the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, that is what I am saying, but even more so because policy actually doesn't say you can blind revert. The exceptions make it clear that you need to make sure those exceptions don't apply. If they don't, then go ahead and revert, but you shouldn't just pull up the contributions page and revert all. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And that's why you saw a specific error I made, but never brought it to my attention, despite having initiated a discussion on my talk page, but instead put it in your pocket in order to use it against me in a AN report disguised as a policy query. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And, BTW, these two edits [68] and [69] make it quite clear that I was not "blind reverting". I saw a problem that I had made and I fixed it. You apparently want me pilloried for being human and missing some other mistakes I made, but instead of helping me, you decided instead to throw stones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Template:U:DennisBrown Yes, I "own" the error, but when another editor sees the error and doessn't tell me, I have no opportunity to correct it. Or, if they fix it and don't tell me about it, I can't thank them for it -- which I would have done. The question in this instance is not whether I made an error or not -- I did -- but exactly how that error was dealt with by another editor. In this case, it was used as a cudgel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would agree that taking here seems a bit unnecessary, and that any problem with an editor (particularly an established editor) should be taken to their talk page first. ie: Use the path of least drama first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple separate questions that need to be asked here, and I will do so with a brief explanation:
    • Question 1) Should a person, in the act of reverting a sock puppet, make at least a cursory check to see if their reverting of that sock puppet would actually create more problems then leaving the edit?
    • Answer 1) Yes, that would be best and ideal.
    • Question 2) If someone comes across a place where the editor in question #1 didn't check closely enough, and ended up reverting where they shouldn't have, what should they do?
    • Answer 2) Fix it themselves. If you see something that needs fixing, the lowest effort and least disruptive way to handle it is just fix it.
    • Question 3) What should be done with the editor that reverted where they should have?
    • Answer 3) Absolutely nothing. If you already fixed the problem yourself, then there's nothing left to do. If you'd like, maybe a pleasantly worded note would be optional, but that should be the end of it; even if they don't respond to your note in a way you would like, the most important thing is there's nothing else to do except fix the error.
    If we focused more on improving Wikipedia text and fixing problems when we encounter them, and less on playing the "punishment game", Wikipedia only gets better. --Jayron32 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That ideal solution gives sockpuppets enormous room to jam Wikipedia by eating up serious editors' time. If, rather than mass revert, one were obliged to scrupulously examine the merits of each particular edit (dozens), committed wikipedians who have other things to do would be sucked into a timesink, with the sockpuppet chuckling. Fuck'em. Revert everything, and whatever is left over to be fixed, will eventually be fixed. Zero tolerance.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't want to make Wikipedia better, no one is forcing you to do so. You aren't being paid, no one really needs you here. If you aren't here to improve things, at the very least, just stay out of the way of people that are trying to do so. --Jayron32 18:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is no way one can get from what I wrote to what you inferred, I suggest you take a course in elementary logic or do some remedial reading. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting sock puppets of banned/blocked editors is making Wikipedia better. If it's not, the person shouldn't be blocked/banned. That said, I more or less agree with what you (Jayron) wrote above. I don't see that you are calling for people to be "obliged to scrupulously examine..." but just saying that it would be ideal to make sure you're not harming an article by reverting, but that there's no penalty if you don't. That sounds right to me, but caught between doing nothing and mass reverting, I'd prefer to see erring on the side of the latter. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I didn't read what Nishidani wrote as not wanting to make Wikipedia better, just different priorities. On the one hand, many editors and policy see not allowing sockpuppets to edit here, and discouraging them from doing so, as very important in order to make Wikipedia better, on the other hand, it's fair to think about how one's editing time, effort and energy are best allocated in order make Wikipedia better. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would wish that there were no implied criticism by Administrator's or others towards those following agreed process in directly reverting sockpuppets. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (in case I'm meant among 'others') I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just fuzzier on the issue, particularly when it comes to things like the BLP violation mentioned in the original post. My first reaction to this thread was to go and fix some of the stuff. I really didn't mean to imply criticism toward those following proceess. The process just isn't as clear to me as it obviously is to others. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy itself is a little fuzzy because policy is designed to mirror actual practice, and there isn't a single mindset when it comes to reverting socks. What I spoke of earlier is a compromise position: If you're going to revert all the edits, you need to make sure you aren't doing damage in the process, because many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits, so not all of them will need to be reverted, and in some cases, you might accidentally violate policy by reverting if you introduce BLP violations that the sock was fixing. There is no "good" answer, so again, it's all about judgement and avoiding being focused purely on punishing the sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good to be reminded that Wikipedia's policy and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive, and what follows from that is that they should be updated with some frequency to match what editors actually do. Too often there's a lot of resistance to adjusting them to new conditions, and guidelines especially are often approached as Holy Writ.
    BTW, Dennis, it's nice to see you around again, you've been missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From Dennis Brown above "many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits". And that is the point of some banned editors. Make good edits that get reverted so they can boast about it on other sites and laugh at the "twisted knickers" we all get into, me as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to all above: I don't believe I ever said we shouldn't be reverting the edits of sock puppets. We should. What I said was, and let me make this abundantly clear, that if someone messes up and reverts an edit that re-introduces a problem into an article, the proper response is to just fix it and then to do nothing else. In other words, don't report people to ANI for reverting sockpuppets. As in, this thread should never have been started. Like, you're all LITERALLY lambasting me for pre-agreeing with you 100%. Like, I already clearly stated the things your arguing against me for. I'm not sure why you are doing it. Please find someone who says something you disagree with before starting an argument. --Jayron32 13:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ken is correct. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy is clear on this. Anyone is authorized to revert ban evasion. No one is required to do so. Try not to re-insert policy violations. Really simple. If someone accidentally reinstates a policy violation, you can just re-revert. Maybe let them know so they can keep an eye out. You don't run straight to the dramaboards pretending like the policy is ambiguous or contradictory. You don't post diffs of an editor making a mistake, and imply they're not "being smart", and then when they defend themselves imply they're trying to have a "pissing match" and claim that you're simply asking a question. Holy crap, what a toxic thread. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The policy is also clear that it has an "exceptions" section which people seem to ignore. And the fact that several people here, admins included, disagree with you, it's not correct to say the policy isn't ambiguous.
      I also never implied anyone wasn't being smart.
      I asked if people can blindly revert without checking, or be smart (as in the adverb) about the reversions. Perhaps you should read El_c comments because if someone is making this toxic, it's not me. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy does not have an "exceptions" section, you're lying.
    The policy says to use "care" when reverting, which you've equated to "being smart".
    You're highlighting a good faith mistake, implying that the editor did not "take care", and thus was not "being smart". I will correct myself, because the allegations were unfair. This thread isn't toxic, your OP was, and your subsequent responses were. Shame on you. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't call me a liar, which is a PA.
    "Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5."
    Click on "exceptions" for exceptions.
    I could write 1+1=2 and you'd complain so feel free to have the last word. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also posted on AN and not ANI because I wasn't bringing any person or drama. I was querying about the policy. You need to make drama, but that's on you. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Drama is caused by people doing the opposite of WP:DENY. Encouraging socks only encourages them and they never stop. That is corrosive to the community. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only skim-read the above discussion, but my basic philosophy is to look at the edits in question and only revert (or delete in the case of G5 pages) if they do not improve the encyclopedia. In my view, reverting an edit that improves the encyclopedia does not conform to the philosophy in WP:DENY, as they can then complain, with justification, that "evil abuez admins are stopping me from improving wiki" and get people on their side. By ignoring the edit, but blocking them for sockpuppetry anyway, they get less ammunition to fire back at us. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I endorse what Jayron32 and Swarm have said - if somebody's revert makes the encyclopedia worse, revert it back using an edit summary that explains why in the context of the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with those supporting Ken - revert socks per DENY, even if the edits are good. Anything else encourages them to continue socking. If they want to edit constructively then they need to so from their original named account, having sought an unblock. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2020 China-India skirmishes

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

    This IP is persisting with WP:FORUMy posts at Talk:2020 China-India skirmishes. I would also appreciate if admins can start monitoring this page since the conflict is heating up, starting today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Controversial moves and parallel drafts

    Awfully drafty in here. Black Kite gives good advice in the body, I suggest reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not that I like having to come back here again, but I have no choice, I have warned @Starzoner: many times but he doesn't seem to mind. I don't understand why he insists on creating parallel drafts instead of just extending existing ones. I will cite some examples below. He also didn't care for Administrator Liz's warning. The worst part is that he recognizes that the merger of the history has already been rejected twice (I applied for it the first time) and still insists on continuing to work on his draft. I will cite some examples of parallel drafts that the user creates:

    I find it very unfair that I continue to do this kind of thing despite thousands of warnings from me and other users. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Redux of previous threads and attempting to run me off from this project. Anyone who sees this thread should see his talk page where people expressed frustration, including mine. Also, regarding the Pet Sematary, he should have realized he broke the terms of use and attribution policy when he redirected my draft and copy pasted all the content there. I've been the victim of multiple insane threads where he's trying to get me blocked for no reason other what?
    simple: competition to his articles. Now that he found the need to come here again, I'll stop editing filmography topic.
    Ping Black Kite, BD2412 as who had responded to other threads.
    Also, I wonder if the recently adopted Code of Conduct could result in sanctions against Bruno.Starzoner (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will leave this and this link that I archived, where you can see how Starzoner immediately after my claim and sent to delete these two articles.Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to move on and stop fighting here on Wikipedia, and even move on from editing here on Wikipedia, if and only if means bringing peace here to the site. Frankly, I'm tired of being dragged here for the purpose of wanting to be "first", despite being the reportee in 2 prior drafts.

    I am really tired of being stalked daily in my edits.
    I am tired of being watched every day/
    I am tired of being threatened every time.
    I am tired of being reported here every day.
    I am tired of being the victim of unnecessary threads everyday.

    I have done is slightly change my approach everytime, but this is not helping the case.

    I may just move on from Wikipedia because of the acts above. Starzoner (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blaming other people isn't a good idea here. You were warned about this previously, and I deleted something like 3,000 empty drafts that you had in your user space for no reason whatsoever except to "pre-date" other people's drafts. So here it is
    • Do not create any more draft pages that duplicate others.
    • Do not create speculative drafts with no content (or useless content, such as "Upcoming film"). Only create a draft when there is encyclopedic, sourced content to put in it.
    • Do not redirect other people's draft pages to your own.
    • Do not do anything that attempts to take credit for creating a page when you were not the original creator.
    • I hope this is clear. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to comment firstly that Starzoner is generally a net benefit to the project, and I hope they stay, and secondly that it is permissible and often even laudable to get a jump on preparing content that will ultimately end up constituting needed articles. Of course, it is pointless to create blank or no-content pages for the purpose of being the "creator" of what eventually becomes an article, but this is an uncommonly silly dispute to be concerned about. BD2412 T 21:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Was this thing seriously brought to ANI? I've had issues with Bruno about their draft creations being particularly lazy and in general just find them a bit greedy about boxing others out in creating drafts as well but it's not an issue that requires ANI unless you and Starzoner started having massive edit wars or got particularly nasty towards one another. Rusted AutoParts 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seriously was, and it's not the first time. I think there's some merit to the OP's concern, but they unfortunately have BLUDGEONed every conversation and not let anyone else actually get a word in edgewise to discuss the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SethRuebens unblocked

    Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, SethRuebens is unblocked subject to a (1) one-account restriction, (2) a ban from directly editing Britannia (TV series), and (3) a requirement to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 19:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Orland Park Place

    Could someone please un-salt the title Orland Park Place? Pokemonprime (talk · contribs) has created a draft in his sandbox and would like to move it into article space. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TenPoundHammer, done. Fences&Windows 19:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2018 FIFA World Cup

    Some pretty nasty comments in the history there, maybe they should be striked out? Govvy (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe they just were. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Brewers in Nottinghamshire

    I've just spent the whole day on a project to help round out the information on brewing in North Nottinghamshire. Someone came along and deleted two profiles already and then marked another for speedy deletion. They say it's promotional. It is not. It was written neutrally. I am not the brewer or in any way associated with the brewer. There was a request to add more information about local brewers - the list page has a huge number of brewers on it without profiles. I feel like I've completely wasted my time. I also feel that the criteria is completely inconsistent because how can you write about any company if it is deemed promotional. And you will note that I followed the stame structure as other brewers who have not been deleted. My understanding was that if there was a problem - eg promotional content - that this would be flagged up on the talk page and discussed. I have no idea how to recover the content that has been deleted. I have no idea how to ask for help. It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here. The profiles are Springhead Fine Ales and Welbeck Abbey Brewery that have been already deleted. SandrinaHatman (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SandrinaHatman, Hi, I'm sorry to hear about this. I have a keen interest in brewery and pubs and have written or improved several articles on the subject including the bulk of Curious Brewing and Fremlin's Brewery. I had a quick look for sources for the Welbeck Abbey Brewery and see coverage in the Daily Telegraph, Nottingham Post and Worksop Guardian, which should be enough to write a small encyclopedic stub. If the breweries are covered in Amberley-published books, that will help. I'm a bit busy over the weekend, but I'll see what I can do about recreating these articles and get back to you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: aren't you rather crossing the line of your interaction ban with Praxidicae by getting involved with this ? Nick (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So what do we do? We just put up with people deleting things willy nilly Nick? Can you please tell me how you're going to help? I spent hours going through press to find the information and properly cited it all. Thank you to Ritchie for the suggestion but I wanted to contribute profiles of small to mid sized brewers because there are 2000 of them and only a handful have profiles. I'm effectively being prevented from doing that. And the Fremlins article was fab Ritchie and very interesting. I just improved Goachers a bit and will be uploading another photo that my friend took of The Rifle today.SandrinaHatman (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandrinaHatman: What has this to do with Ritchie333's interaction ban, which I was asking Ritchie about ? Nick (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick: Prax is the person who nominated the three articles for deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced those were G11 speedies, to be honest. The prose was written pretty neutrally and lists of beers that a brewery sells are not unusual in a brewery article. Whether they're notable or not is quite another matter, but that's not what they were deleted for. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, was wondering about that - we've got I think pretty much every Scottish whisky distillery and would have lists of their bottlings, so are breweries really that much different. Nick (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Article to deletion

    Article deleted as both of the refs were leading to 404 pages that did not exist. Also I find a bit of irony of a hoax page being created by someone with the name "FakerGuy" RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and brazen incivility at WandaVision

    I am reporting two editors, User:Scenarioschrijver20 and User:Anubhab030119. The former for disruption and the latter for abusive behaviour. A discussion was had back in January in regards to the main cast of the show. This discussion was closed after Scenario started filibustering the discussion after many other editors disagreed with them. The discussion was revisited today and Scenario returned to the discussion and proceeded to resume this behaviour. I archived the discussion as it was clear the same road was about to be walked but Scenario reverted it twice [70] [71] a clear act of defiance to continue their filibuster and indicates they will resort to edit warring. I asked they restore the archive but so far it’s been ignored. Anubhab decide to invite themselves to the discussion simply to attack the site and myself and @Favre1fan93:. “nonsensical Wikipedia”, “So let favre and rusted and other dumb people continue following their "rules" like a dog behind their master.”, “Haha, this rusted guy must think he is so "powerful" because he can revert other people to inflict his own nonsense. Carry on with your childish insecurities mate.”. While I was filing this report they proceeded to go after @Facu-el Millo: “Here comes another "expert".”. Rusted AutoParts 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anubhab has added another And no, I haven't bothered to read some pointless article on a pointless website. Those rules are for you guys to bark about, doggy. Go fetch.”. They also edited my above comments. Rusted AutoParts 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As was said by users such as @Favre1fan93: also back in January. It was decided to wait off any cast discussions until after the final episode aired which was last friday. Rusted also did not give other users the opportunity to respond in the new patiently waited to start discussion, which is why I reverted. Reporting me for disruptive behavior seems childish in this case. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When a discussion is archived it is closed. It does not get reverted because you wish to keep talking. If you feel so strongly you open a new thread even though it would be inappropriate. You do not edit war it back open. Rusted AutoParts 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion should include more people. You decided to archive it without giving other people the chance to answer. Seems undemocratic. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were making the same arguments and doing the same frustrating practices as the prior discussion. You kept pointing to arguments that myself and other editors already addressed in the prior discussion. It’s clear where it was going so I closed it. It’s not undemocratic. The point remains you don’t undo an archival. It’s disruptive. Rusted AutoParts 18:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No dude, I was making different arguments. Archiving something you don't give other people the chance to respond to seems disruptive as well. Also it was decided to wait off the final episode. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffeeent arguments for the same point. Each argument you made was disproven or debunked, so it came back to the same as before, where you’re refusing to get the point. Another editor even said you were beating a dead horse so it’s clearly a sentiment held by others. Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No that's just plain wrong. It's a fact that noteable actors get main billing even if they are not main characters. And also it was decided to wait till last friday for the final episode so that we would have all the information. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re now carrying the discussion over here, more evidence of filibustering and bludgeoning. The issue at hand is the disruptive editing and your removal of the archival, not whether actors in a show are main or not. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm just telling you why I reverted it. You love throwing those out. And my removal of the archival was due to you not giving other people to respond because you think you are right and can just go around and archive everything. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsing off-topic discussion. Mz7 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted....r kto chudir bhai giri krbi sala kutta choda? Khankir cheler mto garpeyaji kore jachhis tkhn theke....fot banchod fot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubhab030119 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ”Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted .... how many chudi bhai giri karbi sala kutta choda? Ever since he was mediocre like a prostitute's son ....” the translate came out a bit rough but they’re evidently calling me mediocre and my mother a whore. Rusted AutoParts 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ==Rusted Autoparts== This guy is being disruptive and thinks only that he is right and report people who are against him. Nicky Fury (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Johned 40 minutes ago and the only edit is to come here and criticize me, this is clearly someone’s sock puppet. Rusted AutoParts 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ==Rusted Autoparts== Did you know it's okay to have a thought, but not speak it out loud? I'm thinking things about you right now that I'm much too polite to say. Also, I joined Wikipedia because of WandaVision and came across this discussion. Surprised to see that some people are so small-minded.

    I have blocked Anubhab030119 for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicky Fury, you are hereby warned to refrain from personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This was my honest opinion. We do still live in a free country with rights is it not? To clarify this: "Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint." This is a ground rule of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Fury (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicky Fury, no, you are wrong. This is not a public venue for free speech. It is a private website for the purpose of building and maintaining an encyclopedia. You can exercise your free speech rights elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, obvious sock of someone who somehow thinks there is free speech on Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The amusing thing is they originally got the quote correct, then specifically edited it to remove "by the government" from the end of the quote. Thereby proving the point. Canterbury Tail talk 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP

    Recently I created a page about a Belarusian businessman, it was subsequently nominated for deletion.

    I want to make a point of mentioning that one of the criticisms was that corruption of said businessman was not covered in the article and therefore it was WP:COI. See [72], and the points made there by that same user. In other words, some editors found that the content was too neutral and did not include coverage about alleged corruption.

    At 14:10, 6 March 2021 I inserted a comment on the deletion discussion page, which I can not reproduce accurately because Nick deleted it, wherein I referred to the subject, as a "wallet" linking an opinion article written by leading Belarusian authority Andrei Sannikov. The origin of my use of the word "wallets" comes from a Google Translation of that article as I do not speak Russian. In it Andrei calls for increased sanctions on powerful business people in Belarus.

    After Nick removes that reference, which is quite surprising to me, I respond to Nick at 15:18 by suggesting that there has not been a violation of BLP. Nick does not respond and I continue a debate with another user who initiates a minor edit war about whether or not the Belarusian businessman should be mentioned in the article about Viktor Lukashenko.

    At 17:02, almost two hours after I responded to Nick's actions, Nick asks on my talk page that I explain my use of the term wallet. I continue the debate in the minor editing war. But at 17:47, exactly 45 minutes after having asked the question, Nick simply declares: 

    I'm still waiting for your detailed description of what you (and reliable sources) mean by the term "wallet". I think, since you've not answered but are editing here, we will have to go with a topic ban from BLPs instead. Paperwork incoming at your talk page.

    In other words, Nick can not articulate how BLP has been broken, but wants me to clarify my use of terms and not only is he not prepared to wait an hour for my answer (despite having taken almost two hours to follow up to me), he sees the appropriate response to be a ban on editing BLPs for a whole year.

    I have raised the issue with Nick on his talk page and he has asked me to note that another admin emphasized to me the importance of not making accusations of corruption but I have not done so which makes the point moot. [[

    I have explained to Nick that I have used the terms "politically exposed person" and incidentally "wallet", simply because I read that opinion piece earlier today, in discussions. This does not break BLP.

    A politically exposed person is defined by the World Bank as "individuals who are, or have been, entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state or government. The standard setters and a considerable number of jurisdictions also expect financial institutions to treat a prominent public official’s family and close associates as PEPs" and since Zaytsev is a verified associate of Viktor Lukashenko it is reasonable to refer to him as a politically exposed person. Just to further the argument, Vytis Jurkonis says that Zaytsev should be considered a "politically exposed person – or PEP – due to [his affiliation] with the Lukashenko regime." [73].

    Even if it was found that I have violated BLP, then I would argue that everything I have done is with good intent and I have argued by case going by due process. Nick on the other hand has shown little regard for process, given no explanations and meted out a disproportionate punishment. --Jabbi (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't disproportionate. You ignored warnings, edit warred, created numerous BLP vios that had to be revision deleted and then continued with WP:TE. This has been explained to you on your talk page, both article talk pages and the AFd in question. I'd recommend a boomerang here. CUPIDICAE💕 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae:, funny to see you here. Again, what warnings? The edit war you refer to was initiated by you and concluded with you saying you don't care anymore, the content you tried to remove still stands. Can you point to any BLP vio? Is there anything contentious other than the discussion about peps/wallets? Please put forward arguments, and if you can be bothered, include diffs. Otherwise, your contribution is rather like hot air. And, not disproportionate? I have a good record apart from this, is a year a short time? What's the big concern? Finally, the edit war is unrelated to the BLP issue under discussion here. You raised the issue there about content unrelated to Nick's ambiguous charge of BLP and were found to be in the wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really disruptive now. You literally acknowledged these warnings. We're well into WP:IDHT territory now (and have been for some time) and I'd suggest at this point someone offer an involuntary break until Jabbi can thoroughly read policy, their talk page and reflect on it.
    Warning 1 by Nick at 14:49 following Jabbi's BLP violating comments which were subsequently revdelled after my comments to them at the AFD.
    Acknowledgement of warning 1 by Jabbi at 15:18
    my concern and warning about BLP at 15:50 about a comment made by Jabbi at 15:47 and after a lengthy discussion about BLP, which they also acknowledged being aware of, my comment was a result of concern about them introducing the BLP violating material to a different BLP but about the same subject at AFD.
    After their comment about merging said material into Viktor Lukashenko I grew concerned and noticed an existing BLP violation there (one of many which I haven't addressed yet) and adequately explained my removal in my first, second and third edit summaries, as well as on the talk page. To which Jabbi claims I provided no explanation. I even provided the specific text of the BLP policy, despite their earlier acknowledgement of understanding it and highlighted the applicable part twice.
    And finally, their final comment on the mainspace BLP indicates their agenda and inability to adhere to WP:NPOV by trying to connect a non-notable businessman to a dictator. How is documenting the son of the dictators involvement with a notable business figure undue weight? --Jabbi (talk) 12:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5). This wasn't an innocent addition of a name to an article, as evidenced by their revdelled comments, comments here and elsewhere, itw as an attempt to again connect the dots to corruption despite lacking any reliable sourcing to do so.
    So how many warnings do you need, exactly? This doesn't even delve into your persistent edit warring and POV problems nor your repeated personal attacks. If you really think you weren't adequately warned or this wasn't clearly explained to you by at least two different people, perhaps we should be discussing what level of competence is required to edit BLPs.
    If anyone reviewing this needs me to lay out more diffs, I can but I think a review of the general discussion, edits and edit summary as well as their talk page is sufficient evidence that this ban is more than warranted and necessary. CUPIDICAE💕 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Barkeep49:, can I please ask if you are aware of any specific concern about BLP violations on my behalf? I ask because I suspect the only reason you asked me to confirm that I should not allege corruption is because of context of Nick's actions, rather than anything you would attribute directly to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jabbi (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to others, User:Praxidicae, is not an uninvolved editor and his unsupported views here should be disregarded. --Jabbi (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, speaking for myself, I would have done the same thing. Revdel followed by an WP:ARBBLP ban, due to prior BLP problems. For admins, the diff in question is here. I'm also struck by the OP's use of the phrase too neutral — I think that's a first for me. Like, what is meant by "too neutral"? Surely it can't be lacking in editorializing. Anyway, just because the owners of Belorussian businesses (in general) may need to keep decent contacts with components of a shady regime, does not necessarily follow that they are doing anything shady themselves.
    So, accusing someone of being a money laundering "wallet," doing so on the basis of a machine translation from an unreliable source — that a serious problem. That could be ruinous for such a borderline-notable living person as Alexander Zaytsev. So, fine application of the BLP hammer on Nick's part. Jabbi, more broadly, about righting great wrongs. We have a standard of reliability for sources on the project. We can't pick and choose to lower it for this or that country due to its poor press freedoms performances. That's just not a thing. El_C 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But in the article in question, there is no direct accusation of money laundering. I should clarify, the implication in the article is that in order to be successful in business in Belarus, you need patronage from Lukashenko. This is a given, therefore, wallets, just mean rich people. Not necessarily criminally so. This is a connotation you are yourself bringing into play. Can you tell me where in the article by Sannikov money laundering is mentioned? And when questioned about my intentions, I explained my understanding of the term as being equivalent as pep. Is then a year's ban not disproportionate? --Jabbi (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realize it was said in the deletion discussion, but, you know, reporters can click on links. Everything said on-wiki is public and subject to BLP. El_C 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, where is the link between wallet and money laundering? I don't know where you get that from. Taking circumstances into account, i.e. this is not a wilful defamation, is a year's ban normal? What I am trying to say, Sannikov's article does not suggest money laundering. What's the problem with a rich guy being called a wallet? --Jabbi (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had clicked on the link I provided you could have seen discussion on the afd where a user accuses me of making "the article is not even close to be neutral. No words of corruption. See at least one source on corruption..." What I meant by "too neutral" which is clumsily worded, is that I did not include sources on corruption. --Jabbi (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, and I quote (in part): in the article I have linked independent journalism covering probable money laundering by Zaytsev in neighbouring Lithuania (underline is my emphasis). El_C 04:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But this is unrelated to the discussion around wallets. That article is about Zaytsev's dealings in Lithuania. [74]. This has got nothing to do with the BLP vio Nick based his decision on. --Jabbi (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. But a year's ban. That's a bit heavy. --Jabbi (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I, actually, would not have set the duration to expire, but I guess Nick is a nicer guy. El_C 04:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds strangely vindictive and counter-productive given the circumstances. That fact that you justify Nick's actions using personal characteristics rather than objective facts is disappointing. --Jabbi (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arbitrary and unreasonable," even? Oh well, at least it's brief and forthright. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jabbi, the thing about setting a clock is that it's obviously less useful if the sanctioned individual doesn't appreciate the gravity behind the violation, which greatly increases the likelihood for the violation to repeat at some point after the sanction lapses. To me, that's sort of a fact. El_C 12:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: You seem not to have read my arguments about what edits and references to sources said. You endorse a year's ban for a single violation done when there is good intent? --Jabbi (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am having trouble understanding your sense of justice. I have many thousand edits on my record, mainly on my Icelandic Wikipedia. Never had a vio. And now there is a single vio, just one, where I use the word probable. There is no repeat offence as the use of the term "wallet" can not be seen as a BLP vio, or else explain how. --Jabbi (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the fact that you think it’s over one edit and one word is indicative of the problem here. Your edits on other projects are irrelevant, policies are different and certain articles and categories of articles are authorized for discretionary sanctions here by arbcom motion and community consensus. You were repeatedly informed of this, acknowledged it, said you understood and continued anyway. This isn’t about justice, it’s about disruption and protection. This ban was necessary to stop the disruption and protect the integrity of the project and biographies of living people. CUPIDICAE💕 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jabbi, maybe badgering the respondents to your own appeal isn't the best look, or is conducive to it succeeding (even in ameliorating it somewhat)...? Just throwing it out there. El_C 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel unjustly treated here. I think I will cease participating completely in Wikipedia. As a parting wish I would just ask that someone finish Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alexander Lukashenko/1. Thanks for everyone who's contributed here. Goodbye and good luck --Jabbi (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice about Tulsi Bhagat's request for global rollback

    I THINK WE'RE DONE HERE.
    The request that prompted this has been withdrawn, most of their local permissions have been revoked, their doesn't seem to be anything else proposed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I would like to let you know that Tulsi Bhagat requested global rollback via [75]. The global rollback flag grants autopatrol on all Wikimedia sites, including English Wikipedia, with no possibility to opt-out.

    The requestor previously had that flag, and it was revoked in June 2020 for repetately creating Gautam Kumawat on English Wikipedia, misusing the autopatrol bit granted as part of global rollback.

    Since the previous removal involved English Wikipedia, I would like to explicitly invite English Wikipedia to the global rollback discussion, to voice your thoughts.

    Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The request has now been withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering their WP:UPE, what's their status on ENWIKI? Are they not CBANned? If not, why not? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not CBANned (not even locally blocked), though he was globally locked for a bit and got most advanced user rights removed. As far as I can tell, there was never an AN(I) discussion about formal community sanctions for Tulsi. Blablubbs|talk 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this the last about it? –xenotalk 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes.
    I first came across him at User_talk:Tulsi_Bhagat/Archive_1#November_2019 but I was too new and had perhaps a bit too much AGF and veneration for long-term editors of WMF projects, so I backed down as soon as a third party came to his defence. I was then especially concerned about how he received advanced permissions despite history: IRC? I hope that platform does not have an official status for onwiki business. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more than just the hat collecting, global lock and using autoreview that was paired with GR rights. We are forgetting the dubious crosswiki spamming about Tulsi Bhagat by other users. I have a hard time assuming good faith on that end considering the nature of the content and rather dubious black hat SEO involved in getting that pushed everywhere. CUPIDICAE💕 13:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that’s more recent. Was there a discussion about the editor’s involvement, or are you applying the duck test? –xenotalk 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a mix of things that I probably shouldn't discuss on-wiki but it's fairly obvious there something more going on between the accounts (I don't think one is the sock of the other) but nothing that can ever be definitively proven because of the nature of Wikipedia. I guess I'm just saying if anyone is looking at the history between the editors involved in what I linked, it becomes fairly obvious. CUPIDICAE💕 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Czechia RFC instead of RM

    Hi, is there any chance an uninvolved admin could have a look at Talk:Czech_Republic#RfC_about_the_name_of_this_country? There have been several RM requests over the years that have consistently rejected the name Czechia as the title, but now an RFC has been started on the same topic, which looks like an attempt to move the article without going through the proper WP:RM process. Several editors have commented that the RFC lacks standing and is the wrong venue for a requested move, and given that it's the wrong venue it's hard to see that a consensus for a page move could ever be formed in that way. I think the RFC should be either closed or converted into a proper RM, instead of chewing up editor time in this confusing state until its expiry date of early April, but I've been quite involved in RMs on that subject in the past so am not able to perform an early closure myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Double Czech and mate! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The response to your 2nd close is exactly why I do not mention the merits in a procedural close. Nothing good can ever come from it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, those responses would likely had come in some way or another, anyway. And it's best to be straight up about everything. Through the years, these perennial Czechia proposals always attract WP:SPAs and inexperienced users. That's par for the course. They're welcome to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE it here, but I doubt much will come of it. El_C 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And these proposals always end with the same outcome, because of the English language being what it is — as opposed to, say, Hebrew, where I use צ'כיה pretty much exclusively, due to Hebrew being what it is. Doesn't matter that the Name of the Czech Republic will continue to state in its lead that: most English speakers use [the] Czech Republic in all contexts, therefore reaffirming the WP:COMMONNAME. Shouldn't really be much of a Through the Looking-Glass surprise, and yet almost certainly will continue to reoccur on the English Wikipedia with some regularity. Maybe there should be a FAQ combined with a move moratorium to throttle these proposals a bit...? I'll leave that decision to others, however. El_C 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, there is a FAQ, which does speak to that. Silly me. El_C 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine and good, but the reason for closing the discussion has nothing to do with any of that. It was procedural only, since you need to use RM and not RFC for changing the name of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, obviously our reasons differ and I opt for a wider view, but I suppose it's of little moment at this juncture... El_C 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1010874212"