Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	104	127
TfD	0	0	2	1	3
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	17	26
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 92 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 30 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 33 requested closures
• 58 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 33 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 7869 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack 2024-06-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Shadia Abu Ghazaleh 2024-06-19 19:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle of Bucha 2024-06-19 12:55 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AXXXXK 2024-06-19 08:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree J Williams 2024-06-19 04:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Writers Against the War on Gaza 2024-06-18 22:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands 2024-06-18 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 21:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case University of Texas at Austin stabbing 2024-06-18 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian sports during the 2023-2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-06-18 20:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 2024-06-18 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Noam Chomsky 2024-06-18 20:29 2024-06-21 20:29 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated Muboshgu Reaction of university donors during Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case European Union reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Akash Anand 2024-06-18 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TomStar81 TJ Monterde 2024-06-18 18:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Getalias2/core 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2508 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Getalias2 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2511 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jain temples, Pavagadh 2024-06-18 10:32 2024-07-18 10:32 edit,move Persistent vandalism Black Kite Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-16 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hashim Safi Al Din 2024-06-16 19:44 indefinite edit,move raising to ECP as requested Daniel Case Module:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II J.Williams 2024-06-16 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit J. Williams 2024-06-16 14:03 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit Naznin Khan 2024-06-16 05:30 2024-09-16 05:30 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst 2024 University of Pennsylvania pro-Palestine campus encampment 2024-06-16 04:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Chetsford User:Ajaynaagwanshi 2024-06-16 04:02 2024-06-23 04:02 create deleted as inappropriate is exactly that, do not redo the same editing Billinghurst Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-06-15 22:48 indefinite move reinstate earlier protection due to move warring Graeme Bartlett

Darkfrog24 unblock request

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

---

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) has been unblocked by ArbCom for the purposes of making an unblock request to the community. I have taken the liberty of copying his request here, as per the instructions provided by the unblocking administrator. The text of this request follows below. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Upon unblock I will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before: Working RSN, providing translations from other Wikis, and working biology articles such as Hadesarchea, though my activities have shifted more toward Hylidae. I have a list of articles from other Wikipedias that I plan to translate. I've spent the past years at the Simple English Wikipedia with only positive incident. I've been awarded several barnstars and participated in many editing events. I was given patroller rights there long ago. All is going well. I've started many articles there, including Alberto Santos Dumont, Green-eyed tree frog and Trolley problem. I was on the team for two Good Articles: simple:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and simple:Sento and helped a little on simple:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I helped organize Simple's branch of two edit-a-thons.

I recently witnessed a block experience on another website, and it gave me insight into how my posts must look to other people. The disciplinary system is more complicated than it looks on the surface, and that's not the worst thing in the world. I accept that it is the admins' job to interpret policy. I asked ArbCom about their decision to block me in 2018 as I was appealing a lesser sanction, and they answered me. I consider it asked and answered. I plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction to be qualitatively different from my last, as stipulated, and to continue to obey said topic ban until it is lifted. As I have always sought to do, I will work completely within Wikipedia's posted rules. If there is anything else that the adminship wants me to do or not do, they need only post on my talk page with my instructions.

I have never attempted block evasion in my life on this or any website.

What I want most of all is to put this in the past where it belongs. I realize that will take time and work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 isn't able to edit here currently, so I'll add the timeline that was requested of them here on their behalf. Operator873 ^connect 02:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Responses

Two parties at the thread have asked for a timeline of events and more information. I put this together today:

In assembling this timeline, I realized I'd actually forgotten a lot of this. I don't think this timeline has everything but it does have most of the major parts. To address Ivanvector's point about Wikinews, the answer is no, the situations are not related. What happened on Wikinews during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was that I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill." This statement was deemed to violate WN:NEVERASSUME. If you want to read just one link that shows the core of my case, I recommend this ArbCom appeal from 2018: [1] What I did wrong and kept doing wrong was grossly misunderstand Wikipedia's system for handling blocks and other sanctions. I thought that appealing a block meant providing an elaborate, detailed, multi-part proposal for solving underlying problems ("I'm ready to be part of the solution!") with tons of links and diffs explaining why the original sanctions were wrong, and that is absolutely not how the Wikipedia system works. In fact, by trying to do things that way, I was driving people nuts! As one user put it, I was writing a "call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's [not] necessary." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

In early 2016, I fell under a topic ban for part of the Manual of Style. I don't know how to give more detail on that without saying anything that could be interpreted as relitigating it. Do I agree with the topic ban? No. Have I always done my best to obey it anyway? Yes. The site can't function otherwise. After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. I'd actually planned to make monthly reports to him about what I was doing elsewhere on Wikipedia, as if he were my parole officer because that's what I thought was going on. At my formal appeal of said topic ban, I thought the right thing to do was to provide evidence that the original accusations were wrong. Again, that's not how we do things here.

In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia.

• Initial complaint placed by RGloucester: [2]
• Another complaint: [3] I don't really remember what this was about and I'd rather not reread it.
• Another complaint by RGloucester. I remember this one. Someone invited me to a discussion involving my banned topic and I said what amounted to "I can't go because I'm under a topic ban," but I did also include a link that the admins said was a violation: [4] Like I said earlier, if the admins say it counts as a topic ban violation, then I have to treat them like a referee in a sports match. If I remember correctly, the part of my post that they considered a violation was visible for forty seconds before I reverted it myself, without being asked, before this complaint was filed.
• Now the AE block... [5] I thought that WP:BANEX meant I was allowed to talk to the enforcing admin about these things, but the admins and ArbCom have decided it does not mean that.
• Since it was an AE block, I appealed at ArbCom once in late 2016 [6] and again in 2018. But AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year. In my case it was a little longer, but I appealed again in I want to say 2017 through the normal unblock system.
• I then spent the next six months working RSN and generally contributing to parts of Wikipedia that I hadn't been to before, staying fully away from the Manual of Style. I remember that time passing without incident.
• I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [7] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised.
• I appealed that block to ArbCom, and the appeal was declined.
• ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [8]
• It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Community input

• Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community. Operator873 ^connect 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Regrettably, this unblock request shows the same lack of acknowledgement of the reasons for the initial block that has been displayed in previous unblock requests, and is laden with the same quasi-legalistic arguments about the procedure by which the block was enacted. Any unblock request must acknowledge the original reasons why Darkfrog24 was blocked, and show at least a modicum of contrition. Anything else is opening up the encyclopaedia to the same sort of incessant disruption that Darkfrog24 wrought upon the encyclopaedia years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - struck, see below.

Just looking over the standard offer, I see a requirement to avoid the initial behavior that led to the block as the only stipulation regarding past issues. I feel Darkfrog24 addressed this in their request. Additionally, I'll further point out that the stand offer specifically mentions "Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are." Not only has Darkfrog24 distinguished themselves on other projects, they have specifically expressed the willingness to move forward productively on this project. I think this is an excellent opportunity to AGF and allow a chance to reintegrate. Operator873 ^connect 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In the first place, Darkfrog's case is anything but 'standard'. We're well past that point. We've had eight years of appeals, all of them tone deaf wastes of the community's time. While I agree, no one should be forced to grovel and beg for forgiveness, nor is that what I'm asking for here, this unblock request itself is an example of the 'initial behaviour that led to the block'. I do not believe that Darkfrog understands what Darkfrog did that lead to the block, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that they will actually abide their topic ban and avoid such behaviour in future. For Darkfrog to be 'productive', they will need to express a clear understanding of the topic ban that was issued, and why it was issued, without asking for endless clarifications. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support their work on Simple does the thing that we literally always ask for: demonstrate the ability to work collegially and without disruption on another project, and assuming that CU corroborates that claim, I think it's an easy decision to unblock per ROPE. I note, in passing, that neither WP:SO, WP:BLOCKING nor WP:UNBLOCK demand any kind of grovelling "contrition", and I do not think it is necessary to make people crawl to see that they know where they went wrong. I also think that it ill-behoves those that supposedly non-partisanly move an editors unblock request here then begin WP:BLUDGEONing the same discussion. What gives? SN54129 19:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit rude, don't you think? I have Darkfrog's talk page watched because of our previous interactions, and noticed no one had copied the request to AN as was requested. BLUDGEONing? Sometimes, I wonder about Wikipedia. One comment, a bludgeon. In any case, I will withdraw, if not for yours or Darkfrog's sake, for my own.RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RGloucester: I apologise for Assuming Bad Faith as I did; I've seen that kind of thing happen, and it's offensive when it does. But, I admit, one edit does not a bludgeon make. Sorry! SN54129 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You also removed my comment...[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• If we want thoughtful participation from more people than just those who have had past dealings with them, there needs to be some background here. As someone unfamiliar, I have no idea what topic DF is even topic banned from, no idea what led to their topic ban, no idea what they did in violation of the topic ban to earn a block, and no idea why multiple previous unban requests have been rejected. There is no way to find all this without some detective work. Is the theory that every single person who comments here is supposed to spend an hour and do this research for themselves? Since @Darkfrog24: is the one requesting an unblock, here is the minimum I'd like to see from them:
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to the topic ban
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to their multiple blocks
  • Links to the previous unblock requests.
• If someone besides DF wants to compile this instead, OK I guess. But until then, this is an insufficient unblock request, and I conditionally oppose it until it is fleshed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I never circled back on this. Info was provided a while ago. If I have time I'll review and opine, but if not, the reviewing closer shouldn't consider this an oppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  DF has written their timeline on their talk page. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't expect a forced apology for past wrongs but I do expect that those past wrongs are at least acknowledged in an unblock request. I'm not familiar with this user, but from what I can gather from links in their extensive block log, they were topic-banned from a particular subset of the manual of style, I cannot discern for what reason, and some time later were indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access revoked (as well as UTRS eventually revoked) because they just would not stop wikilawyering and attempting to relitigate the topic ban. The fact that they were also indefinitely blocked on WikiNews for the same type of behaviour (allegedly also over that project's style guides), and the fact they've explicitly stated their intent to relitigate the same sanction again in their unblock request, does not sit right with me. I both commend and applaud your contributions to simplewiki, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  To quote from the 2016 Arbitration motion: "She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." I interpreted Darkfrog's comment about appealing lesser sanctions to be in line with previous advice, aka to work on editing constructively in other areas prior to trying to immediately re-enter the sanctioned areas that caused issues last time, and to abide by those sanctions so long as they are in place. And yep, I've had a hard time trying to sift through all of the archives, it's a rather annoyingly complicated set of discussions. Regardless, Darkfrog is certainly capable of contributing constructively to community projects, and I don't see how this block is preventing disruption by continuing. Vermont (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Then, as Darkfrog has not done so, tell us what the [expletive deleted] ban or block (it is unknown whether it was one or both, as the title of this section refers to unblocking but subsequent comments talk about a topic ban) was for and link to the relevant discussions. How can anyone independent come to an opinion without this information? And having to spend time digging around for that information will inevitably end up biasing people against her. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not enough information has been provided for anyone to have an opinion. User:Darkfrog24, you are the one asking to be unblocked, so you need to tell us (with links) why you were blocked. You can't expect others to do any detective work to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• The following provide some background to the later portions of the situation: 2019 AN unblock appeal, 2018 AE appeal closure diff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• And here's a link to the 2016 ARCA motion declining the appeal of the original indef block and topic ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of thoroughness, I'm going to say here also that DF has posted their timeline on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Those demanding some sort of act of contrition are on thin ice for actual policy. All that matters is that henceforth Darkfrog24 promises to be a positive contributor, and has the work at other projects to show that they are capable of it. DF's work at Simple is absolutely all the evidence needed. (Those asking about a timeline of events can see the one DF24 placed on their talk page, being that that is the only place they can currently post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. The failure to provide links to the discussions that led to the imposition of the sanctions and the previous discussions that declined to remove the sanctions is a very bad indicator, and to me, shows disrespect to editors trying to evaluate this unblock request without wasting editors time in conducting detective work. This editor has had many years to study and learn what is required to formulate and submit a successful unblock request. I looked at a unblock request from 2019 that is linked in this user's block log, and noticed that I had opposed the unblock based on comments from TonyBallioni which I agreed with at this time and still agree with today. Then, I checked out a block related conversation from 2016 which included comments from Drmies that gave me great pause. That was eight years ago. Some may argue that this was all quite a few years ago, but that argument is only legitimate if we have solid evidence that this editor has abandoned that disruptive point of view. I see no such evidence. The editor's supporters point to their good work at Simple English Wikipedia and I suppose that is a point in their favor. With no disrespect to thar project, I consider it to be relatively minor in comparison to this project, and I am sure that pageviews will back up my claim. So, perhaps this editor's best niche is as a contributor to that project, where they can make positive contributions to that offshoot project, but are unable to disrupt the flagship project of the Wikipedia movement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: DF is unable to post their timeline and relevant links here as they are currently blocked. But they have posted the requested information on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Operator873, thank you for providing a link to where this blocked editor says After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. That amounts to additional evidence that this block remains necessary. What we need to see for an unblock is evidence that this editor has completely and definitively abandoned this type of disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I think DF is specifically saying they see this was a mistake and a part of the problem. Hence, they do not intend to repeat it in the future and, at the minimum, are requesting WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap. Operator873 ^connect 03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, that's them describing their past misconceptions from almost three years ago. See the last sentence of what you quoted. Vermont (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't care about apologies or statements demonstrating understanding; I don't pretend I can judge a stranger's mindset based on written correspondence. What I care about isn't what's in their head or heart but their actions, specifically whether they can contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting others. I believe they can after skimming their Simple Wiki contribs [10] and talk page (2021 is a year of what appear like productive collegial conversations), and their Wikinews contribs since being unblocked there in December [11]. Maybe I missed some recent red flags but absent evidence of recent problems, if they can edit without problems at Simple for the last couple years and Wikinews for the last couple months, they should be fine here. And if not, they'll get blocked again. Levivich 03:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally rather oppose due to extensive off-wiki experience with the user that led to me leaving #wikipedia-en back in 2019 when this user was allowed to "help" others with their policy questions there during their block. I believe they have always had the genuine intent of helping, but reading their name here again brings back bad memories. They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  It pains me to see someone say any reason made them walk away from Wikipedia. Indeed, that is, perhaps, the worse outcome of any conflict on Wikipedia. However, with respect to you and not intending to offend, but... isn't They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. the precise embodiment of assuming bad faith? I understand some folks expended a lot of energy in 2019 regarding DF and the incident they were involved in. However, in 2022, I hope those same people can see the amount of energy DF has put into re-earning enough trust to be given a chance. Operator873 ^connect 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  From the IRC channel, not the English Wikipedia itself. I assume good faith, but it was clearly combined with incompetence back in 2019, which may have changed. Assuming that this might not have changed is not an assumption of bad faith, it's just pessimism. That should be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair statement and I think I understand what you mean. While I can't speak for Vermont, I can say my reason for being here supporting her is that I am witness to her improvement and will put my name on this statement: I know the troubles are in the past and she's ready to move forward. Operator873 ^connect 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I also noticed that and had a similar concern. Though, it looks like that should hopefully no longer be applicable with the unban discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moving to support based on the responses and timeline. I do think the user understands why they were blocked by ArbCom on their last topic ban appeal, and acknowledges that rationale such that those particular issues won't recur. From the appeals of the block, it seems we as a community have pulled a "gotcha!" each time they appeal: if they acknowledge the topic ban we say "they're relitigating!" and decline; if they don't mention the topic ban we say "they don't acknowledge the ban!" and still decline. Well we can't have it both ways. They're a user whose past productivity on this wiki has been noted and who has remained active on sister projects throughout their block here, which is what WP:SO asks for. They're here committing to respect the topic ban even though they disagree with it, which is how topic bans work. They should be given the opportunity to comply.

Regarding the topic ban, which is not being appealed here; Darkfrog24: in each of your requests where you've noted the topic ban, you've made a point of also noting that you disagree with it. You need to refocus; saying you don't agree with the ban kills your appeal before you even get started. Successful topic ban appeals start with the sanctioned user acknowledging that their own disruptive behaviour led to the sanction, and that the sanction was necessary to stop their disruption; that's how you convince the community you won't just do the same thing again. It seems you've appealed many times already on the basis of the propriety of the ban, and each time those reviewing agreed that it was appropriate and necessary. You will not successfully appeal until you also acknowledge that it was necessary. Nobody here has any moral authority to demand contrition or apologies, and that's not how any of this works, but a successful appeal does sound something like "yes I did these things and I was sanctioned because I would not stop." Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I recognize DF's name, but I don't know that we have had any substantive interaction; still, for me, this seems an easy support. They are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and should be given the chance to do so. I also don't mind a stance of "I believe this decision is wrong, but I am willing to abide by it" (but note I am not an administrator). I would however, urge DF to be less litigious in general--I think the original block was appropriate. That said, all the best, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• "I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised"--that led me to two comments by Thryduulf, this and this, and those comments are still valid. I also agree with comments by Cullen328. I'll add that the way this request is going, starting of vague and partly in denial and then moving into minutiae is exactly how earlier conversations/appeals went, and it's exasperating. On the other hand, Levivich makes a valid point and who knows, it's been a while. Putting all that together with my own memories (which bring back a sense of failure and frustration on my own part), I find it impossible to choose one option over the other, and will wait and see what the community says. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of this until seeing Drmies' ping above. I still have strong memories of just how exasperated I was by Darkfrog24 (which is significant given that it was years ago), such that I don't wish to spend any time evaluating this request so I will not bold any opinions. However I will encourage not unblocking without a short leash such that, should they return to their previous behaviour or anything else disruptive that a block can be swiftly reimposed without wasting yet more of the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should ping you or not: I know this was as much a time sink for you as it was for me. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    Just felt I should briefly chime in again to explain my thinking--which is mostly about the nature of DF's transgressions. They were, as far as I can tell and somewhat recall about being an administrative time sink and aggravation. I don't mean to make light of that as an issue; as I said above, the block was deserved. But it strikes me that if anything like that were to reoccur, it would be instantly obvious by its very nature. I think we all agree DF could be a worthwhile contributor, they just need to make sure their behavior doesn't make them a net negative. I believe they should have that chance, though, as ever, my information is only partial and I fully appreciate how others (especially admins!) could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – I said I would not comment further, and I wish that I could do so, but it seems there is a real problem in terms of institutional memory here. Perhaps too much time has passed, as some others have said. I take Ivanvector's point that, in order for the topic ban to be acknowledged, it needs to be discussed. However, one must take care to note the specific way in which it is being discussed. Please see this comment that Darkfrog has added. I would like editors here to draw their attention to one particular remark, specifically the following sentence: In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. This may seem to benign to anyone here who is not familiar with the dispute, but I can assure you that it is not. The initial topic ban was issued precisely because Darkfrog continued to advocate for a position that quotation style is an ENGVAR issue. Contrary to community consensus, and a pile of reliable sources that were brought up each time it was discussed, Darkfrog would argue that there are 'American' and 'British' quotation styles, and that Wikipedia needed to acknowledge this fact.

Because this argument was repeatedly rejected at the main MoS page, Darkfrog moved the dispute to a few subpages, one of which was subsequently deleted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support, and one which was userfied User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register (please note the creator's comment at the top of the page). Darkfrog's reference to the 'Manual of Style Register' is in fact not benign at all. This page, previously at the title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, was used by Darkfrog as a PoV fork of the MoS, despite the fact that it had no community consensus behind it. Darkfrog used the page to compile random stuff that Darkfrog deemed useful ammunition in disputes, and its previous shortcut of MOS:REGISTER gave it an air of legitimacy. Please note very carefully that Darkfrog linked directly to a section of this page that Darkfrog had compiled for this purpose, without providing any of the background information about the page, and with continued reference to it as if it had the authority of an actual MoS page. This is the exact sort of behaviour that led to the original topic ban, and is proof that Darkfrog has not 'dropped the stick' as people are wont to say here. The advocacy campaign, and the attempts to legitimise Darkfrog's position, continue...in this situation, how can an unblock be justified? This really will be my last comment, and I do apologise if my participation here is deemed a nuisance...but it seems like I am one of the few people that actually remember what happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My view on this as I said above is that Darkfrog is not appealing their topic ban which covers all of these past disputes, they're stating that they intend to respect it. Even though they explicitly disagree with it I see no reason not to believe that they're capable of abiding by it. It seems to me that has always been the case, with the exception of their nagging of a relevant administrator (which they now acknowledge was both "testing the edges" and harassment) and their crossing the line in an AC appeal. I think they also understand that if this request is successful and they then violate the topic ban again, the resulting block will be quite permanent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if, as Thryduulf says, Darkfrog is truly given a 'short leash', and Darkfrog truly intends to abide the restriction, then I suppose I can withdraw my opposition to an unblock. In order for such a 'short leash' to be enforced, however, it is important for administrators to familiarise themselves with the specific nature of the behaviour that led to the block. I will strike my oppose. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very dubious about unblocking this editor. The response to my simple request to show why they were blocked/banned was not to provide a few links with a brief factual account but to give a rant about how hard done by they were, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that led to the block in the first place. If the editor is to be unblocked then I hope that those who want this are willing to take responsibility should anything untoward happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Apologies, but I was hoping you could clarify your message. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you're saying DF has gone on a rant but, they're blocked. They literally can't participate here and have only provided a brief synopsis on their talkpage with links to the requested information others have asked for. I'm just confused about you talking about their behavior where DF can't actually participate? Operator873 ^connect 23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This does appear to be their edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I copy/pasted that edit here. But, I think it's a bit of a reach to call that a rant. DF was specifically asked for all of that information. She provided as requested. Operator873 ^connect 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's a rant. There's loads of self-justifying commentary there rather than just a statement of the facts that she was specifically asked for. That's exactly what she was blocked for. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is very clear sysop misconduct + one-way IBANs are a problem; unlike anything here. I was not familiar with the Arb matters at the time, but it does not appear to be necessary as of right now. Darkfrog24 can use common sense; even in times when many editor editors do not, and I hope to see good contributions from Darkfrog24 in the future, and improve the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • NeilN isn't around to answer to that accusation, but I strongly disagree - this was a measured and appropriate warning to a user violating a sanction imposed under the authority of arbcom, who was in the process of talking themselves into a total block. NeilN warned them at least twice more after this to stop before pulling the trigger, and then their UTRS access was also pulled because they still didn't stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay, I wasn't aware of that. I also didn't really have a problem with the talk access being removed when it was eventually, I was more concerned with the specific diff alone. I've also just now seen that NeilN is not around (ironically, their last edit is telling everyone they will be more active after a two month break, then took a 3.5 year break :/). I still think it was not handled perfectly, but I remove my statement about very clear sysop misconduct. Naleksuh (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, Naleksuh, that is not sysop misconduct. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This right here is why 1-way IBANS are a problem. If Editor X is banned from talking about or interacting with Editor Y, but Editor Y is not such restricted, and then Editor Y makes uncivil/abusive/inappropriate/baiting/whatever comments about Editor X, it's essentially a trap. If Editor X reports the abuse being directed at them, they are technically violating their restriction (at least by the letter), because it's impossible to report abuse from another editor without mentioning that editor. That what appears to have transpired here. It takes two to tangle - it doesn't matter who "started it" or who was more "at fault" - if two or more users are problematic with each other, then round robin ban all of them, or ban none of them. IBANS are relatively trivial compared to topic bans, so even if one editor was "more to blame" then the other, sanctioning them both with an IBAN is hardly excessive, and prevents this very situation. In this particular case, the "ridiculous suppositions" definitely didn't help their case, but the admin in question was also rather aggressive considering that the question appeared to essentially be asking for the ban to be made 2-way. Even if such a request is violating the letter of a ban, it should be allowed under most circumstances as a specific exception. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:C4E0:11CC:3658:77A0 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is being appealed here? The title says that its a block, much of the previous discussion was about a topic ban, but now you people are going on about an interaction ban. Can we get some focus here for us uninvolved editors who shouldn't be made to spend hours digging through histories to find out what this is all about? And I mean simple facts, not people's opinions about those facts, which can come separately. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of layered sanctions involved here, many of which resulted from DF24's problematic behavior while appealing existing sanctions. The inciting sanction was a TBAN from discussing quotation marks and quotation styles imposed in Jan 2016. This was later expanded to encompass the entire MOS, broadly construed: [12]. Shortly after, she was blocked for a week at AE: [13]. Finally, at the end of February 2016, she was indeffed for wikilawyering the TBAN: [14].

She was unblocked December 2017, but the MOS TBAN remained in force. In June 2018, she attempted to appeal the TBAN, but as a result of further wikilawyering at that appeal, she was blocked for a month and given a one-way IBAN with SMcCandlish (June 2018). This apparently upset her to the point of making the comments that NeilN admonished her for in the above-noted now-struck comment. Later that day, NeilN upgraded the one-month block to an indefinite block, as a result of the now-suppressed comments on her userpage. Other appeals via unblock request, UTRS, ArbCom, and a community request like this one in 2019, have followed and failed.

All three sanctions - the TBAN from MOS, the IBAN with SMC, and (obviously) the indef - are still currently in force. I believe the current appeal only concerns the indef, but naturally the other sanctions have come up in discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, ♠PMC♠ is correct in that this conversation is only regarding the indef and not any of the other sanctions. DF will abide by the TBAN and other sanctions while reintegrating into the community and rebuilding the trust with the community in general. Further, DF has fully acknowledged rebuilding that trust will be a lengthy process: I realize that will take time and work. Operator873 ^connect 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - It appears that Darkfrog24 has not only complied with the indefinite block but has contributed to the Wikipedia project in the Simple English encyclopedia, where they have made positive contributions. It appears that Darkfrog has learned from their mistakes and is ready to edit collaboratively in the English Wikipedia, subject to the same restrictions as had earlier been imposed. (That is, I am supporting the unblock, not any lifting of restrictions.) (As I explained yesterday in another case, I have a particular strong distrust for anyone who engages in block evasion or sockpuppetry, and this is not such a case.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock...with conditions - I feel a bit qualified to speak about DF's unblocking request, as I have had substantial interaction in the past with the editor, all of it extremely negative. I was blocked due to my interaction with this user on an article (DF was blocked, as well), and at the time I considered them pretty much among the worst Wikipedian I'd ever worked with. In short, I fucking loathed Darkfrog with the heat of a hundred suns; very few other users have ever made me feel that way, or could make me lose my temper the way I did when around them. There was tendentious editing and - I am still positive to this day - socking. I was close to walking away from the Wiki-EN forever, all because of the user.

But that was over 5 years ago. It took a near indef block to get me to change my own problematic behavior, so maybe the block that Darkfrog has been subject to has changed them for the better as well. I am not saying that I am never tempted to lash out; I am saying that my desire to edit collaboratively has since outweighed my need to be right. So, in that way, I suspect that I have actually changed.

I suspect that DF is in this same position; the impulses are still there, but maybe the user has begun using the correct tools to interact with others better. They seem to have found a better place for themselves in the Simple Wiki (which I consider to be just as vital as the regular Wikipedia), and while I have not looked at Darkfrog's interactions there (though someone should if only to confirm that they are better at editor interaction), I want to believe in Second Chances; I am a better editor because I was afforded a second opportunity, and it follows that DF might be as well.

It is because of that history - and my own reflection on it - that I would support a conditional lifting of the block. The possibility of change does not mean the implementation of change. I think a second chance is warranted. If they mess it up, they mess it up. Give the user a chance at their own redemption. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The conditions to be what? I've looked into the archives and diffs at some length -- more than might have been wise or good for me, in hindsight -- but I'm still in two minds as to what to comment on it, or indeed even whether to. (And yet, here I am.) In particular it'd seem unfair to the user to get into the weeds of the MOS stuff when they're enjoined from commenting on that at all on this projecct; other than their several prescriptive-grammar userboxes. Frankly my heart sinks to read that they "will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before", "plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction", and their compliance is framed in terms of "until it is lifted". I know that Hiberno-English is if anything over-supplied by use of the subjunctive, but a "would" or three would go a long way here for me. But from their activity on both simple: and on wikinews, it seems like an issue they're still very invested in, and see it less as a style-guide choice, but as a great right to be wronged in the form of overturning the "ban" of "correct" "American English". (To SYNTH some descriptions they've previously used here, and more recently at those other WM projects.)

But surely if they're to have any further "conditions" (much less any sort of (IMO rather unfortunately phrased elsewhere) "short leash"), it should be something clear and transparent, not just something ominous-sounding but vague. And conversely, if they're not unblocked at this time, it would be a minimal service to them to indicate what they should do to be so in future. Rather than as seems to have happened in the past to be essentially told "you did it wrong this time, try again next year", which would surely be deeply frustrating for anyone. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian, I'm looking at closing this since it seems everyone who wants to comment has said their piece, but before I do so, if I do unblock are there any specific conditions you have in mind? Bear in mind that this request is only to lift the block not for a full amnesty, so if I (or anyone else who decides to close it) decide there's a consensus to unblock, it won't stop any other topic or interaction bans from remaining in place. ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent, Not having any interest in Darkfrog's contributions since my unfortunate interactions with them, I can only offer an informed outsider's view. In the past, DF has been determined to enforce their view of an article on the community; the idea of collaborative editing was utterly lost on them, as they considered everyone else to be intellectually stunted. Then there was the very strong indication of socking, which I am hoping was a one-time flirtation that I voiced to an admin at the time. And of course there has been the MOS content issues which eventually led to their indef ban.

Maybe they have improved, having switched over to the slower pace of the Simple Wiki-en. Maybe their patience with others has grown, and their need to win an argument eased. Speaking for myself, those would be the only reasons to let them back in. Taking into consideration the views of others who have had more interaction with DF, I would submit that the user be limited in the following ways:

-a permanent ban of anything related to MOS. This is intended to be all-encompassing; any attempt to wiggle around the rules should result in massive damage from the BanHammer.

-A one-revert rule for the first 3-6 months, to encourage them to use the article discussion page to build consensus. As above, any attempt to mis-characterize a revert as a content edit should result in a BanHammer beat-down.

-Mentoring with someone that admins feel is completely opposite to DF. This might not be fair to the mentor, but it would provide DF with a 'devil's advocate' and someone to talk to that could provide an alternate view of a situation the DF might find personally frustrating.

-a review of the user, sort of like probation, at the 6-month and 12-month point, post-unblocking, to be conducted by an admin fully aware of DF's tactics used in the past to 'pretzel' the rules. If the user should pass these two probationary reviews, we should allow the user to free range - but maintaining the permaban on MOS and MOS-related topics.

It's important to keep in mind that we cannot change Darkfrog's personality; we are here to try and channel her usefulness to the Project into effective editing - and thus better articles - in the Wiki-En. She has shown she does quality work when her ego is removed from the equation. Once she accepts that the manipulative aspects to her personality are only detrimental here, she will likely stifle them, as she has seen the results of her failing to do so in the past. That's my two cents' worth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, DF does have an active topic ban related to MOS, that is not being appealed here. And speaking as someone who works with her relatively frequently and has only done so for under two years, your description is far from how I would describe her today. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, an indefinite topic ban, applied prior to the indefinite block. I was going to say they weren't allowed to appeal the former until some time after any lifting of the latter, but I might have formed that impression incorrectly while trying to navigate the twisty history of this. But at any rate an ArbCom member "strongly advised" them to wait before re-appealing that. Jack Sebastian, I've got some sympathy for your suggestions, but I doubt any of them are fliers. "Indefinite isn't permanent" seems to be something of a rule of thumb, so I don't think an exception will be made here. And technically there's a competence issue here: I don't think this noticeboard is empowered to deny a user any possible future appeal. Perhaps an interval of a year (as was previously applied) or two years (as previously suggested but not adopted) would work. A 1RR restriction might be seen as harsh, as none of their earlier sanctions seem to related to that sort of activity. Mentoring has been strenuously opposed by the bannee in the past, there seems to be a distinct lac of volunteers, and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Likewise for the "probation officer" approach. And on a more mundane note, given how late-on these are being suggested, we'd have to considerably extend the discussion to allow others to chime in again before adopting them, which again seems unfair to the user if there's an apparent (if trepidatious) consensus to unblock otherwise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will readily admit that I am of the personal (and perhaps minority) opinion that an indef block'd person has a large-type problem with conforming to the rules by which the rest of us agree to follow. Given a second chance to work with us should mean that a salted version of AGF is applied until the formerly-blocked person proves that a solid lesson has been learned. I (truly) love the fact that we give second chances and often even third ones, and that we are careful in doing so.

I do think that DF has intentionally misapprehended/misinterpreted/exhibited selective blindness - and that, more than anything else, gives me pause. Looking at her defense of her MOS back and forth was just plain maddening; she actually thought she was smarter and cleverer than not just one or two of us but all of us combined.

I don't know if that her perception can change/has changed. Even now, that dark part of me that wonders if DF is petitioning to get back in just to see if she can. And that is the same part of me that wants to boot her down a well if she gets yet another chance and squanders it by resuming the same sort of behavior that got her where she is now.

I think we have to insist on some braking controls with DF, and if that means re-opening the discussion to see if at least an 1RR and a ban on MOS-related topics, then so be it. DF has been blocked and warned for edit-warring issues in the past (full disclosure: I was a party to at least one of those blocks as well).

Do I think Darkfrog is irredeemable as a contributor? No. I myself am a bit of a reformed asshole editor, and I was allowed another chance - with conditions that have since expired. It would be unwise to let DF free rein without at least similar conditions, if not more. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will point out, again, that this discussion is only for the block and all other actions, such as the MOS Topic Ban, will remain in place. This discussion is solely about whether DF should be allowed to demonstrate they are able to successfully integrate in other areas of Wikipedia similar to how they've integrated and become a trusted part of the Simple English Wikipedia community. I think the concerns that DF will "go off the deep end" are a bit excessive since, even if that was the case, a new block is but a click away. I, personally, don't think that would happen and I'm willing to back that statement up with endorsement, support, and advocating for DF. I'm not one for putting my name on something lightly; but DF has earned my support the hard way. Operator873 ^connect 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

{ec)Jack Sebastian As Vermont and I said there already is an indef MoS TBAN in place. Having read chunks of the history of that stuff, yes, it comes across exactly as you describe. Like the punchline of a bad Sheldon Cooper joke, only even less funny, and in even poorer taste. I already said more than I originally intended to, above, but candidly if I were Wikidictator -- or had the casting vote on yet another Arbcom appeal, just as implausibly -- I think I'd want the next one on that to come a year after the user had been on a descriptive linguistics course (i.e. any actual proper academic one at all, as opposed to the Traditional Prescriptive Grammar ball of smoke), and had desisted from throwing around the "ban on correct American English" nonsense, on any Wikimedia project. Sure, they're not TBANed from it there, but it goes to apparent state of mind (your honour), and this request has very much stressed their work on simple:. Much indeed as their previous one stressed their work on Wikinews, something that ended up in this also fairly appalling exchange, which the appeal really seems to minimise in favour of said credential-burnishing even when asked about it directly. But I'm not in either of those positions -- fortunately for all concerned -- and I think that's beyond the scope of our desired input here. It's certainly entirely plausible they might have greatly improved their skills in seeking to resolve such disputes, even if of the same (frankly dogmatic) views concerning them.

I wasn't aware of the EW warning and blocks, and don't really want to take a deep dive into that too, so I offer no further comment on the intrinsic merits or procedural details of that idea. I certainly don't agree with the user's self-assessment (paraphrasing from memory and not having the link to hand) that they do "professional-quality work for free", which sounds like it'd be infinite gain. The quality is glaringly lacking in some areas, and it clearly does have a cost: in the terms of the toll it takes on other participants. (True of most of us, I don't doubt for a moment.) Whether it's better or worse than zero-sum is a harder call to make, but on the evidence of simple: and WN:, there's a strong case to be made that it at least can be positive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Beyond passing comments about her time at WikiNews, the thoughtfully provided link indicate that DarkFrog has not altered her approach to editing since my own interaction with her in 2011. There are just too many red flags here, and I am a bit disappointed at DF's lack of commitment to change. I think I have to alter my opinion to Opposing Unblock. I think we'll be back here in less than a year debating this same sort of thing, and that seems like a tremendous waste of time. Let her stay at the Simple Wikipedia, where she seems to be able to function there. I don't think she can manage without major drahmaz here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: What red flags are you talking about? What "lack of commitment to change"? The IP linked to something from 2020. Can you link to diffs of recent problems at WikiNews, Simple Wiki, or anywhere else? Levivich 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And are you really judging someone based on an interaction you had in 2011, 11 years ago? Is that a typo? Levivich 17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: Hi Lev. No, it wasn't a typo.

If the issue was only with my interaction with the user over a decade ago, I'd be at the same spot where I was when I first commented about the unblocking proposal, even with all of the intervening years of MOS nonsense.

However, seeing evidence of the exact same behavior at WikiNews not even two years ago makes me doubt the ability of DF to be able to conform. When you see the same exact behavior exhibited over a decade, that's a pretty strong indicator that despite all of the input of well-meaning admins and editors, the contributor has not changed, cannot change or does not think they need to change.

I know my opinion is probably in the minority, and I'm okay with that. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that we'll be back here in less than 18 months, debating DF's problematic behavior yet again. I am thinking that our time, present and future, is better spent in other areas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So you are judging this editor based on something that happened two years ago and that doesn't stop you in your tracks? Like, why ignore the last two years of evidence of productive contributions? You say they haven't changed, but they have, based on their last two years' of contributions. Why not judge them based on what happened in the last 12 months? Or the last 6 months? You say "we'll be back here", but when were we "back here" last? Judging someone for behavior from two years ago, before their block from WikiNews was lifted, is the same thing, in my eyes, as holding a grudge. Make a !vote based on who this editor is today. Look at their contributions recently. Anything else is unfair, just unfair. If we judged every unblock request based on what the editor did years ago, we'd never unblock anyone. Levivich 18:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: Again, you appear to have missed the point. The user has acted in exactly the same way for over a decade. They say they have changed, and go right back to pissing us all off again. By your reasoning, we should let Grawp, Essjay, and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry back in, all due to the problems with them being over 2 years old.

And frankly, you asking when we were last discussing Darkfrog's behavior seems a bit baffling; have you away during all the earlier posts here? The user's behavior has been problematic for over a decade, and you somehow believe they have magically gotten all better now. As I noted in a previous post, if DF's behavioral issues remained in the dim past, I was ready to let them have another chance. But upon learning that the same issues kept cropping up at Wikinews, it appears that the user will never change, and we are going to end up blocking her yet again in short order. This isn't a 'grudge'. This is an observation of a pattern that does not appear to have altered in any significant way in the past. That suggests that it will not change in the future.

I hope I am wrong - I really do. I just think that evidence to the contrary is pretty compelling. I vote no. Sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Not "magically gotten all better now", we have the last two years of evidence of positive contribs at Simple and the last four or five two months at Wikinews. That's also what separates this appeal from the other editors you've mentioned. It's like you're considering only evidence up to 2020, but not considering any evidence from 2021 or 2022, even though there are hundreds (thousands?) of recent contribs. And sadly you're not the only opposer in this thread whose comments are limited to events from years ago, and who aren't commenting on the last year or two of contribs to sister projects. I don't understand why people would form conclusions based on old evidence and not consider more recent evidence. Levivich 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think your maths is a little out on Wikinews contribs: they appear to have been blocked there for almost all the intervening time in connection with that incident, and only unblocked for what's a little over two months now. Others can will obviously have to make up their own minds, but when I produced that link, I wasn't suggesting it was decisive in my mind -- it's not, I'm left with very mixed feelings. On the one hand, as I said great play of their WN contribs was made at the time of their last appeal as "evidence of positive contribs". Cut forward to them being blocked there most of that time, saying nothing at all about it in their appeal, and when directly asked about the block, only find this to say about it: 'I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill."' Not a very full or helpful summary of what I linked to. Their contribs there since seem from what I've looked at fine, aside from what look like tells about the same hyper-prescriptive take on style issues. Articles on Old World moths must be in AmEng. Any use of LQ is not "correct" and not "American". The very wording of their request here seems to envision a return to that here: get unblocked, appeal the TBAN after that, then get back to "contributing to the encyclopedia as before". But "as before" is exactly the problem, especially in that area. But conversely, I think they have met the terms set out for appealing the block as originally set out, there's no MoS TBAN on them at either simple: and WN, so it's not misconduct for them to press those issues there, and WN did eventually unblock them, so it's certainly arguable that if they're all right with them, that shouldn't be taken as a necessary impediment to a return here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I was counting from their unblock request in December and hadn't noticed they didn't actually get unblocked until Feb. Two months, which isn't a lot (neither is four or five), but that's buttressed by the longer record at Simple. Levivich 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that their contribution at Simple: is encouraging, and I've seen no issues of serious concern raised there. I'd have preferred that they not during that very period of time have used it as second front on their MoS war, and in particular not continued their insistence that it's not simply a matter of "we have a style guide, let's go with that", but of anything other than their particular preference being not "correct" or "American", which is exactly the locus of their original woes here. But it must be said it didn't turn into a WP:BLUDGEONfest, their TBAN here doesn't extend there, and I'm not aware of them causing MoS trouble there in their article edits, so there's no user conduct issue there as such. Just adds to the general sense of the user not having dropped that particular stick, and it remains to be seen if they plan to return to waving it around "as before". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, 109. I don't see this MOS thread at Simple as evidence of a problem, but rather evidence of a lack of problem. First, it was two years ago (2020). Second, as you said, there was no bludgeoning or other disruptive activity in that thread. They made a suggestion, it didn't go anywhere, they dropped it. Here are all their edits to the MOS talk page at Simple: there was only that thread in 2020 and replies to another unrelated thread in 2021. No evidence of "failing to drop the stick" or bludgeoning or anything like that. Not only do I see this as a lack of evidence of problems but I see it as evidence of reform.

In every way that I can figure, this is a model unblock request. This is what we want from every indef-blocked editor: a history of productive, non-problematic contributions at a sister wiki. Levivich 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We may be going around in circles on this, and perhaps to little purpose given I'm essentially on the fence myself, and I might be helping hold up closure to little purpose. But I'd have to disagree on both counts. The simple:MoS interaction seems less an example of seeing the issue in anything other than the stark black-and-white terms ("incorrect in American English", exactly the framing of the issue that led to such grief here) than just not having found people to argue incessantly with them there.

For me, a "model" unblock request would:

• Not involve having been blocked for almost two of the three years since their last request on the very "sister wiki" claimed on that occasion as evidence of their likelihood to be a net benefit there;
• In the alternative, have at least mentioned this in their appeal, which isn't went much more on the brag-sheet direction;
• In the alternative to the alternative, have given a fuller -- and frankly, less misleading -- summary of that incident when directly asked;
• Not been engaging in exactly the same campaign for "correct American English" that led to a TBAN here in those terms on both the sister wiki featured in that appeal, and the sister wiki that's foregrounded in this one;
• Not flagged their intent to return to exactly the same area here.

A grantable appeal? I think there's certainly a strong natural and procedural justice argument that it is, and a more marginal 'may be a net benefit to the project' one too. A model one? Not within a bull's roar. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think a lot of that reticence to deep dive through Darkfrog's more recent contributions might be that most of them (myself included) feel that deep-diving this user's recent activity is more work than the user deserves from her detractors - sort of that whole 'the definition of insanity' thing. They see a clearly established, long-term unchanging behavior and have assessed that the user cannot change. That last part is somethign I do not personally believe, but change has to come from the user's view that they have been wrong and need to change. The consensus of those opposing this unblock request is that this user doesn't want to change; they don't even see a need to address the mistakes of their bad behavior. It is not an apology they are looking for; its evidence that the behavior has actually, fundamentally changed.

I don't know how to explain it any better than that, Lev. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

If you're not willing to look at recent contribs then you don't know if the user's conduct has or hasn't changed, because you're not looking. You can't close your eyes and tell us your eyes are open. Levivich 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As Levivich said, this is a circular argument. If that is the consensus of those opposing this unblock request, it is ignoring recent years of improved behavior and constructive contributions. I was concerned about your baseless accusations of socking, your more-than-rude descriptions of her behavior, but this logical fallacy is a bit too much not to make note of. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock I think this is a decent unblock request. Based on the above, I'm quite convinced that DF understands the reasons for which they were blocked and, as such, I'm hopeful that set of issues won't recur. Especially if they're staying well away from any MOS/style-related issues. It seems a primary issue in their block was relitigation framed as 'clarification requests' which also made admins stop wanting to deal with the editor (eg [15]), so assuming this unblock request passes I'd support a speedy reimposition of the block if that recurs again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Close please

This block appeal is about to enter is fourth week on this page, and with respect to the participants, nothing much is really being added at this point, we've all made our arguments. Somebody please close this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Odd IP vandalism

I came across some IP vandalism on Peru-related articles that, on looking closer, seems to be broader than a few bits of vandalism, and wanted to bring it to admin attention.

If you look at this IP's edits you can see the type of edits being made - the particular phrase "Alex alexander huerta avendaño" appears in most cases. It popped up on several articles that I caught doing recent changes patrolling, mostly in Peru-related articles. The problem lies in the fact that this appears to have been going on for, literally, years and has not been caught on smaller articles. I did a Google search for that phrase, and found it all over the web, including lots of Wiki mirror pages that include it. I fixed this as one example, which had been there since last year. There are a fair number of law enforcement-related pages that seem to have been affected as well as regional articles, and it's possible these edits have slipped past. The editor appears to be on IPs starting with 181.176 for the most part.

I've left a note for WikiProject Peru to keep an eye out. Not totally sure what to do beyond that, honestly - the IP seems very, very focused. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, 'Alan alexander huerta avendaño' is presumably a reference to User:Alan Alexander huerta avendaño, FWIW. Hmm, I wonder if he is related to User:Wilmer Alexander huerta Avendaño? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The second one is exactly the same edit pattern, same article areas. I'm guessing the first would be tied to the whole lot as well. Whoever this is has made a living of making accounts and splashing that name(?) all over the Internet. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve protected DIRCOTE for a little while, that seems to be a current target. National Police of Peru has already been protected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Recently active in the last hour or so at Alexa[16]; User:181.176.98.133 blocked by Widr. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Just for reference, the range that seems to be creating most of these vandalistic edits is 181.176.0.0/16. It seems to be an extremely high traffic range. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though I suspect it’s just a few people using highly dynamic IPs; there may be some proxy use in the mix too. Our friend 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' has been active again. He appears only interested in a handful of articles so I've now placed a lengthy partial block - as this has been going on for some years - on the /16 range for four articles that they seem to favour. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. (cc Tony Fox). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got a few pages watchlisted. Persistent, ain't he? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

They're now spamming at Talk:DIRCOTE in the form of sections titled 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' with material such as "policia" and "metalrock". 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3581:FAF4:6129:CFEA (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, already reverted. Will keep an eye on this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I found another account User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño 10255323. And of course, User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Might ARBPIA-rules be needed for the war in Ukraine?

Many articles related to the war in Ukraine see heavy edit warring and frequent policy violations from IPs and very new accounts, to such a level that it becomes detrimental. A similar rule as for WP:ARBPIA would probably be beneficial, in other words, users would need to:be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure. While many disputes would no doubt continue (just as on articles related to ARBPIA)), applying this rule to articles related to the war in Ukraine might go some way to reduce the worst disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Usually when restrictions are proposed for entire topics at this board hindsight has shown they weren't really necessary in the first place, though the community usually doesn't agree to repeal them. See the Uyghur GS authorisation which has been used for 4 page protections, various other stale GS authorisations, and the topic-wide ECP restriction for India/Pakistan conflicts, which went largely unenforced though the community did eventually repeal that one. The ARBPIA WP:ECR rule is a huge exception to the rule, and only exists for two topic areas currently. There should be a very high burden of evidence required to institute the restriction on more topic areas. The evidence should include showing a chronic pattern of topic-wide disruption, to levels far greater than the disruption naturally present in any contentious event, especially current ones (e.g. consider anything current and American Politics related). In the meantime, there is WP:ARBEE and discretionary per-page ECP protections, which AFAIK has been working well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that at the moment - I think WP:ARBEE page-level and user-level actions are working well. A significant amount of the disruption I've seen has been from anonymous and/or new editors which can be contained via semi-protection, or ECP where warranted. Topic-level ECR would be using a sledgehammer to crack nuts at the moment. firefly ( t · c ) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with firefly --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, we already have tools in place to deal with this and by and large it seems to be working. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Jeppiz:, I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia to influence some articles related to the conflict, which would explain the arrival of brand-new and single-purpose users who are engaging in discussions on hot issues. I think there is a need to protect this topic. Mhorg (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Intriguing, I must say! Would you be willing to cite some examples/suspects? Because if this is true, we must assuredly do all we can to flush them out! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I would like to show you this small collection of data. These are just the single-purpose or dormant users, who in these days have taken action to remove the "neo-Nazi" label at the Azov Battalion[17]. I fear that there is an ongoing campaign outside Wikipedia, perhaps through some blog\forum\reddit, to intervene on the article. Therefore I ask some admin to consider protecting the page from users with less than 500 changes. In addition to these users, there are dozens and dozens of anonymous users interventions, all pushing in that same direction:

• Good dog rex 2 total edits: he says that the Azov Battalion isn't a part of the neo-nazi movement [18]
• OlgaAlska 2 total edits: says that the current article is "Russian propaganda" [19]
• Baylrock 3 total edits: join a RFC and says that the paragraph about "Nazism" is "a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda"[20]
• JKWMteam 3 total edits: says that "This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof." [21]
• Wked00 3 total edits: says that they want to change "neo-Nazi" to "right-wing".[22]
• Averied 6 total edits says: "Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??"[23]
• Metalsand 9 total edits: says the group "is not strictly neo-nazi"[24]
• Editdone 21 total edits: says that the current article "is being used for propoganda"[25]
• Disconnected Phrases 86 total edits, single-purpose user for Azov Battalion[26]: says that "The idea that the Azov Battalion is "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine," is straight Russian propaganda".[27] Literally, it would be propaganda a 2021 RFC[28] in which dozens of users participated and defined that part of the text.
• Berposen 88 edits on the English wiki, 37 edits from 2020 to 2021: says that "neonazi faction separated from the battalion" therefore: it would mean that the battalion is no longer neo-Nazi.[29]
• PompeyTheGreat 376 total edits with 8 edits in 2022[30]: says "a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda"[31]--Mhorg (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Many editors note issues with the Azov Battalion page. User:Mhorg was already reminded about NPA and SOAP here. There is a procedure for dealing with socks. Infinity Knight (talk)

New editors make a lot of very good points. Many of those that are coming to the Azov Battalion page are in Eastern Europe, possibly are active editors on other wikis, and often have better access to the facts on the ground. They may not always be neutral - I wouldn’t be either if my children were in danger — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are making stuff up, or that they need to be excluded.

For instance, the claims in the article absolutely *do* echo Russian propaganda. I suppose it is possible that Russian propaganda could be correct, as they have such a high regard for the truth, but I personally prefer my Wikipedia articles to have reliable sources. The sources absolutely *were* questionable, and it’s not me saying it, it’s the reliable sources noticeboard. There is an arguable case to be made that the battalion *is* right-wing, or once *were* neoNazi. I have not yet looked at the new sources for “is neo-Nazi”. Possibly the admin that got involved on the RS page has managed to get them to find some actual sources, in which case yay and I will believe them. But as of yesterday or the day before, the sources for “is neo-Nazi” in the lede at Azov Battalion had been uniformly laughable.

I think that valid input is valid input. IPs and new users or not, the fact that people keep coming to the page to say it has problems may just possibly be not so much due to an “Azov Battalion edit-a-thon” as some have suggested —-they are rather too busy keeping Russians out of Europe for that—- as it is to the fact that the page does indeed have problems. If meat puppetry is suspected, then an SPI case is the remedy, not excluding valid input Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian-originated meatpuppetry has been a commonplace on this project for several years, and looked exactly like this one - dormant and new accounts and IPs showing up out of nowhere to make a point, not bothering (pr pretending not to bother) to read previous discussions, and hoping to win by a sheer number of votes. In most cases, CUs can not help, only blocks and protections can. Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Ymblanter: for your opinion. Given this situation, and since we are having an important RFC on this issue, wouldn't it be possible to prevent users under 500 edits from participating in these discussions? Mhorg (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I can not act as administrator in this topic area, and honestly I think that a broad ban such as in PIA topic area is not yet needed. Even in the PIA topic area, non-extended-confirmed users may participate in the discussion. I do not have an opinion on the specific Azov discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, another dormant account jumped in the new RFC, Tristario with 12 total edits. I think it is not possible to have such an influence on the debate from this kind of users. There is a risk of distorting the content of the encyclopedia. @Rosguill:, sorry for the ping, could you please check if this situation (including the 11 cases listed above) is normal? Mhorg (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal

• SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Original ANI discussion
• Talk-page discussion
• Earlier appeal

It has been over five months since @El C: put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone.

I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.
___________

Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.

Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:

In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.

In related edits, I improved William McAndrew, expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me.

I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.

I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.

I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.

I made improvements to other articles.

I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.

In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.

___________
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me.

SecretName101 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:

• Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to... struck, because they finally did do that...)
• What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
• How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project.

I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article.

The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate? SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions.

A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project.

I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the "...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway" which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. Begoon 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now. Begoon 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction?

I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet.

What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down?

Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck. Begoon 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern.

But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why "Subject is an American businessman and convicted fraudster" is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. Begoon 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair.

I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep.

I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not?

have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" because your "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy". Can you see how that might be a concern? Begoon 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out... Begoon 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy" then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. Begoon 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• With regret, I also oppose for now. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and the previous appeal, in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons  ..., broadly construed is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban: There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. I am not imputing to the editor an intent to deceive or violate; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban. [I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The UCOC enforcement guidelines have passed

58.61% to 41.39%. 945 opposes, 65 neutrals, and 1338 supports. See it at meta:Universal Code of Conduct. Moneytrees^Talk🏝️ 21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC) The guidelines can be seen at meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines Moneytrees^Talk🏝️ 22:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if they'll publish breakdown of support/oppose by home wiki, much like they did with the voter turnout. Hog Farm _Talk 21:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

In order to do that, they'd have to keep track of how each person voted. I doubt even WMF would do that. or at least admit to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Securepoll is a horrible piece of software that embodies a lot that has been wrong with how the foundation has prioritized software development dollars in the past. The one thing it does do is ensure votes are anonymous. So there is no way to say what the support/oppose was by various wikis because it genuinely can't be told from the software by design as a privacy feature. Which, at least for me, is incredibly important that private voting is kept private. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To be more accurate (I think, someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong), the UCOC was already in place, by pure WMF fiat. This was the vote on the enforcement mechanisms. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant to say, I've amended my comment. Moneytrees^Talk🏝️ 22:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are not correct, in your understanding, you are not alone in misunderstanding; I, too, believed (and believe) the vote was about "enforcement mechanisms". And furthermore, that being so: if my understanding of the "enforcement mechanisms" is also correct (even if only mostly correct) Wikipedia's era of joyful optimism has officially given wane to a new era; a regrettable era to say the least. Oh how I wish to be wrong. --John Cline (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. If it tells us anything, it's that WMF have learned lessons. Viz, don't put anything up to a vote unless you can guarantee the result first. SN54129 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And they continued to follow an old lesson they've been following for years: make sure what you're writing is as unparseable as possible; then once it passes, you can interpret it however you want. And in classic "First they came ..." form (sorry, don't mean to violate Godwin's law quite so soon, but it's otherwise too good an analogy to avoid. To be absolutely clear, I'm not calling the WMF nazis), I didn't actually pay any attention to the years-in-the-making UCoC until someone pointed out it could affect me directly, and by then it was already too late. If it wasn't for the fact that, before too long, they're going to demand a loyalty oath and attendance at a re-education camp for new admins (and in about a year, almost surely for existing admins to remain admins), I would probably still not know or care anything about this. So, to some extent, I deserve what I get. In the long run, bureaucracy always wins (absent a revolution, which seems unlikely here). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So what happens next I guess? Hog Farm _Talk 22:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Next? The WMF tells admins they've got to enforce UCOC. The admins reply 'or what'? Then we find out what 'what' entails... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I foresee admin resignations, especially in areas where the UCOC is an anchor around the neck (i.e. any of these areas). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Watch this space. Unfortunately I am busy with work until this weekend, but on the weekend I will be proposing some amendments to WP:ADMIN that will explicitly disallow ENWP admin enforcement of the UCoC, as well as prohibiting WMF staff/contractors from holding advanced permissions on ENWP. It will absolutely not stop UCoC enforcement, but it will make it clear to the WMF that if they want to do it, they need to do it themselves, from a staff account. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

If WMF decide to go ahead with the UCoC enforcement, I would unambiguously support such a motion. If they're not willing to listen to their largest community, then they're not truly doing their own job, according to their mission statement, which includes In coordination with a network of individual volunteers - obviously if you're not listening to people then you're not "in coordination" with them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something in the logic flow here. But if the proposal is to prevent enwiki admins from enforcing the UCoC, and additionally prevents WMF staff and contractors from holding advanced permissions on enwiki, who then will enforce the UCoC? Pretty much any enforcement action would require advanced permissions, so this sounds like a defacto block on any enforcement of the UCoC. Or will this proposal only prevent WMF staff and contractors from holding advanced permissions on their non WMF work related accounts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I should say 'community granted' permissions on their non-staff accounts. Staff accounts can be granted advanced permissions by developers (I have no idea if a staff account has them by default). UCoC enforcement would then only be able to be done by a WMF staff member, on a staff account. Making it clear that its WMF enforcing a policy they have in place, and not any part of ENWP's self-governance. Due to the inherant conflict of interest, it would mean anyone who is a staff member or contractor for the WMF could not hold advanced permissions on their non-staff account, because of the confict of interest between them recieving cash from the WMF and their duty to uphold ENWP's policies before the WMF's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I can't say I support that proposal, as I continue not to see any issue with the UCoC or enforcement of it by local enwiki admins, as it is pretty similar to any such code of conduct you'd be required to sign for employment or long term volunteer work in a professional or semi-professional capacity. But I do now at least understand what that proposal would entail. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think desysopping and debureaucrating 10+ admins, bureaucrats and former arbcom members, who otherwise make good contributions and may or may not have anything to do with UCOC, is a very bad idea. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The stuff about self-proclaimed indigenous knowledge trumping all, or something was terrible. It reeks of corporate America. Such a shame it passed. Secretlondon (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It may also be worth having a discussion about requiring the WMF to get a consensus on the English Wikipedia before making any significant changes, technical or otherwise, to the English Wikipedia. Whether the WMF would abide by that discussion if it does produce a consensus for that requirement is a different question. BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end: The WMF should obviously have some role in enforcing the UCOC, but to give them the sole responsibility for enforcing it would not lead to positive results. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Cheerio, Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And over 1,300 editors voting for it is not changing anyone's mind about how this is all the WMF's doing. I wonder if they'd approve a grant for popcorn... Levivich 22:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• If they tell me I have to enforce it, I will ignore them. If they tell me I have to sign a loyalty pledge to the Foundation almighty, I will just watch them rip the admin bit out of my hands, even though they aren't the ones that gave it to me. As I've said elsewhere, my loyalty is to the community, not the paid representatives of the Foundation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

↑ Likewise. Deor (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

↑ Likewise. Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

↑ Likewise. — Ched (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

↑ Likewise. BusterD (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I will state as clearly as I possibly can: no one will have to sign a loyalty pledge. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

MJL, at least to me, the gist of affirming to a standard that I frankly don't believe is in the English Wikipedia's best interests (the UCOC stuff probably works better for some of the smaller wikipedias) is essentially stating that I am more loyal to the WTF than to the English Wikipedia community. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Okay, but you aren't even going to be required to say you'll enforce the UCoC since you're already an admin. I get that some people are concerned because future admins will be required to affirm the UCoC, but that is a separate issue (among other issues). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on with exception of current advanced rights holders with rights that are not up for renewal who will not have a set timeframe to accomplish these affirmations. This may be changed on review after a year following the ratification of these guidelines from the enforcement guidelines, I'd sure says that's coming in the not so distant future ... Hog Farm _Talk 03:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Possibly a good chance that many future admin candidates will just refuse to sign an oath or attend a WTF class and will be elected anyway. Maybe all of them. Probably the best thing to do now is take anything mandatory for English Wikipedia admins - past or future - out of the proposed document as soon as possible. That would save a huge amount of time and let English Wikipedia know that the Foundation recognizes both the extent of Wikipedia's self-governance and how important a certainty about that is to many Wikipedians, including those elected by the community under its own set of rules, regs, and whatnots. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but they can't change it without review. That's in the text. When that review happens, that is when you should be making these points (which for the record, I will participate in to support the removal of affirmations altogether rather loudly). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah,that seems to have been worded that way so they could tell us old timers we wouldn't have to do it right away, while all new advanced permission holders will have to (iff it approved by the Board) That doesn't reassure me at all. I also share the concern about mass resignations. I'll tell you all this: we absolutely should not all start resigning if and when the enforcement guidelines become global policy that we must swear to uphold. Instead I propose we make them fire us for refusing to do so. They will either back down, or they will have to own being responsible for decimating the admin corps worldwide. They can't claim there was a strong global mandate for this as turnout was absurdly low. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: can someone please summarize, in plain English, what changes this would require of our policies? 93.172.232.172 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

None at all. As folks basically kinda admitted when I discussed this at User talk:Iridescent, there is nothing in the UCOC that isn't already English Wikipedia policy (either as-written or as-applied). To me, this just seems like a huge overreaction caused by a mix of a) skepticism over WMF-led initiatives; b) fear/uncertainty when new major policies are introduced (further backed by the fact that the community tends to be quite conservative and refuses to change processes, even when it finds a consensus that a given process is broken, because it's worried any replacement will have side effects).

Obviously, policy is not enforced by robots, it's enforced by humans, and indeed the UCOC is enforced mostly (entirely in the case of enwiki?) by local admins. So thinking there will be some catastrophic change due to some ambiguity or typo in the UCOC docs is IMO quite unreasonable. Actually, much of this section just comes across as a dislike of the WMF. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just a quick question for everyone here. Regardless of what the policy says, and also regardless of what we feel about it, by what practical mechanism can the WMF force any one Wikipedia admin to enforce the policy? Blocking an editor for violating the policy requires a positive action on the part of an ENWP admin. Like, I have to go in, read the ANI post (or whatever initiated the block requirement), and decide to enact the block through my own volition. How is the WMF to require me to do any of that? I'm failing to see how this proposal affects even a single ENWP admin and the performance of their jobs as ENWP admins here? Like, even without this UCOC mess, pretend this is 2017 or whatever. Lets say there's a discussion on ANI that comes to consensus that some user is to be blocked. How does anyone know a) that I read the discussion b) that I decided I didn't agree with the results and c) that I could have used my admin tools but just decided not to? Because unless the WMF knows about any of that, they can't actually force me (or any admin) to use my tools. They can't say "Jason, we're sanctioning you because you didn't block so-and-so". How? What if I was on vacation that week? What about the other hundreds of admins? Literally, this is not reality. The UCOC can realistically only be enforced by the WMF using WMF personnel. There's nothing they can do to an admin, because there's literally know way of knowing that any one admin deliberately disobeyed the requirement to enforce the UCOC. It's all making mountains out of molehills. If the WMF wants to enforce it from their WMF accounts, let them. They can't require a bunch of volunteers to block someone, anymore than they can force an editor to correct a spelling mistake in an article. --Jayron32 12:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: I guess this is what the enforcement guidelines process was all about, and a lot of it still seems to be left deliberately vague. But as I understand it, the key points are: admins are responsible for enforcing the UCoC; ArbComs (or equivalent) are responsible for making sure that admins on their project are enforcing the UCoC; and the new U4C will be responsible for making sure that ArbComs are enforcing-the-enforcing (point 4 of its scope). So if there's a systematic failure by enwiki admins to enforce it, the U4C will be looking to see if ArbCom is doing anything about it, and if they're not lean on them to do so, or as a last resort recommend the WMF take some severe action like removing and replacing ArbCom or the admin cadre. I highly doubt that would ever happen on a large project like enwiki, but you can see parallels in the WMF's recent actions on zhwiki. If it's not a systematic problem then it's not really a problem at all, since presumably other admins on the project are picking up the slack of doing UCoC-enforcement. So yeah, it's pretty hard to see how this could impact individual admins, unless they refuse to affirm that they'll enforce the UCoC in the first place, which would be a clear justification for someone on that enforcement ladder taking away their bits. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am curious what these hypothetical scenarios are where the UCoC would apply and enwp admins would say "I'd rather quit than address that specific conduct the UCoC says is problematic", and what you imagine would happen if you try to argue that enforcement in that scenario is [un]necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I've been wondering about this myself. I get the you-can't-tell-me-how-to-volunteer-my-time response, but seriously, what in the UCoC's "unacceptable behaviour" list do we not already act on? We tolerate mild trolling, we might debate over whether something is "actually" harassment, but most of what's covered under "harassment" is stuff we already take very seriously. Under the "abuse of power" section, the only thing I'm not sure about is the "psychological manipulation" part (how do you recognise this?) And vandalism? Even a lazy admin like me acts decisively against vandalism. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

RE: the "psychological manipulation" part (how do you recognise this?) — with a Shoe (0nhead). Random example: Fakebook's T&S has been complicit in causing 'psychological' harm to the Rohingya. Of course, oh hi Mark seems to be far more interested in having some weird uncanny valley GTA RP, with required VR headsets and without any of the fun, or a superior (10-year-old) graphics engine. But with voluntary nudes and NFTs for some reason. And nobody caring. A brave new world (that sucks).

Annyway, we don't want the kind of delusions, ineptitude and outright maleficence of the tech giants spilled over, here, to en. We got this, WMF. When it comes to en, there's no need for you to flex the Dark Side of the pur$e $tring mu$cle with a poorly-defined, top-down command & control. As noted above/below, the WMF already has the power to do any and all of that (even if to everyone's detriment, its own hierarchy included). Side note: I am the leader of the Wikimedia Foundation. I will do it. El_C 15:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We're all forgetting that Wikipedia is basically en:, and the foundation is a parasitic outgrowth. Without en: they are left with sorting out infighting between the Armenian and Azeri Wikipedias, and the excitement of Moldovan Wikiquote. The power is with the big Wikis, not with the actual bureaucrats. We are the product they exist for. They are nothing without us. People donate to them, thinking they are us. Secretlondon (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is such a bad take. English Wikipedia is not the only Wikimedia site that matters. It's very misguided to believe otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It may not be the only Wikimedia site that matters, but it's one of rather few that does. Many of the other language Wikipedias are very small and primarily either run by a very small cadre of editors or are otherwise poorly created (Cebuano Wikipedia is just a bunch of bot-produced stubs on species and places, and I think everyone remembers the Scots Wikipedia fiasco). Wikiquote is a bunch of copyvios that nobody reads, meta is a cesspit, Commons is a mess of copyvios and porn, etc. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Of course I remember the Scots Wikipedia thing; I was there as an admin.
I will also point out that just because a site has systematic issues, does not mean it is irrelevant. Croatian Wikipedia is one of 4 different Wikipedias written in Serbo-Croatian, but who runs is still a pretty critical concern because otherwise its issues will bleed out into other projects. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

MJL, speaking of systematic issues at some of the smaller issues, that's what I've felt that the UCOC and the enforcement guidelines would work better for - small communities that can't govern themselves effectively for various reasons. I don't think the one-size-fits-all approach here will lead to anything good. How to govern issues in Scots or Croatian is not relevant to enwiki, and trying to slam a single document onto all (I'm referring to enforcement here, not the same behavioral expectations) is just going to hurt everyone. Hog Farm _Talk 16:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Except in a few areas (in re training and affirmations), the EGs aren't a one-size-fits-all situation. We are talking about a document that literally says: Local enforcement of the UCoC may be supported in multiple ways, and communities will be able to choose from different mechanisms or approaches based on several factors at their discretion, such as their capacity, approach to governance, and general community preferences. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Based on what I've read, and from some conversations I've had with WMF people, I'm really not too worried. The vibe I get from those conversations is that WMF considers enwiki to be well-managed by its community and this is mostly aimed at some of the smaller projects where self-governance is a lot more dubious. As for "forced enforcement", it's just plain absurd to think they're going to put a gun to an individual admin's head and say, "Block that user or we'll take your mop away". But I could see them say to a local Wikimedia chapter, "If you don't state that the UCOC applies to your meetups, we're going to revoke your charter". For instance, I would imagine that m:Wikimedia New York City/Code of Conduct will eventually include a UCOC mention.
  People seem to be worried that this somehow gives WMF some power they didn't already have. That's silly. They own the servers. And some trademarks and domain names. And they pay for the data centers, bandwidth, and employees to keep it all running. They could pull the plug tomorrow. On the other hand, they don't own the software or the data, both of which are freely available for anybody to download. So the day after tomorrow (well, maybe a little longer than that; it's a lot of data to upload) we could have wiki-fork-a-pedia.org up and running if we could find the money. The existence of the UCOC doesn't change any of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  We're their biggest product. They exist because of the success of en: Secretlondon (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. People's concerns seem to be that this is a Trojan horse for other/bigger changes down the line, or some kind of complete WMF takeover of en-wiki. Basically, some folks don't assume good faith on the WMF's part. While the WMF has certainly made mistakes in the past and some suspicion is reasonable, I think Wikipedia volunteers have a tendency to be too paranoid about the organization. The UCOC is not going to result in major changes around here (and if I'm wrong about this I hope I never have to eat my hat!). Ganesha811 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am really surprised it passed. It would be nice to see the breakdown by wiki. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• To address the questions from @Rhododendrites: and @Guettarda:, and also to be clear about where the problem lies: The UCoC itself is fine, most objections are specifically to the loss of local autonomy inherent in the way the enforcement guidelines are written. The mysterious U4C committee is described as a venue for final appeals. So, let's say the duly elected Arbitration Committee on en.wp makes a decision. Someone doesn't like that decision (as we all know there is basically never an arbcom decision that somebody doesn't think is the most unfair decision in the history of decisions throughout the universe) So they appeal to the U4C that the arbcom decision doesn't properly follow the UCoC enforcement guidelines. The U4C could then hypothetically order the en.wp arbcom to change their decision because of this perceived lack of compliance. Failure to obey can result in the entire arbcom being desysopped for "refusing to enforce". That shouldn't even be a possibility. Defenders of the guidelines have said this isn't what is supposed to happen, but the way the guidelines are written, literally any advanced permission holder can have their rights revoked if the U4C decides they didn't properly enforce the UCoC. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  While that hypothetical would, of course, be a problem, there's a lot of possibly's, theoretically and perceived's in your comment. And I'm not sure which parts of the guidelines the concern is based on because meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines#Scope doesn't assign U4C scope to deal with the appeal of any random ArbCom sanction, unless you (ArbCom) refers it to the U4C, or the WMF does (and U4C accepts). Keep in mind the U4C will also be community-elected, and I really doubt the WMF starts referring random ArbCom cases to the U4C and the U4C accepts.

  Again, to put things in perspective, this section is a load of speculative paranoia that the UCOC is a trojan horse, combined with threats of admin mass-resignation. The concerns are completely unsubstantiated by evidence. At User talk:Iridescent you had editors (not Iridescent, to be clear) making assertions that AFD decisions could be changed due to the UCOC. No WMF employee or UCOC drafter has made any such claim. This entire section is nothing but fear, uncertainty, and doubt. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Right, and what is your post if not the same thing in reverse? The WMF doesn't need to make claims in advance for whatever WP:FRAM 2.0 might be in store. It's all FUD, until it isn't. El_C 03:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with others here that it is rather unlikely that this will result in any major changes (at least on large projects like en), but I also believe that policies that allow for possibly's, theoretically and perceived's with potential impacts this massive should be rewritten in a way that doesn't allow those interpretations. Approving something with this much wiggle-room based on the assumption that it will always be interpreted the way we interpret it now strikes me as an overly optimistic approach to policymaking. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Blablubbs. When it comes to en, many in the WMF are out of touch. Which makes them unpredictable. In that sense, the less of an opening they have, at en, the better. I actually think the WMF's mostly does a decent job wrt interventions at en. Any WP:EMERGENCY reports I ever submitted were replied to within minutes. More complex reports to WP:T&S usually get answered within hours. I don't think there was even one instance in which I felt either lacked professionalism or expediency. But the WMF needs to stay in their lane. This weird overreach —again, wrt en only— is a giant time sink. If only they were to just exercise some common sense. But that's challenging to do when one is out of touch. El_C 12:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This weird overreach —again, wrt en only: It doesn't seem like the UCOC's primary target is enwiki, but obviously it's quite difficult to claim a document is legitimate if it has a "Big Wikis Exemption" clause. Everyone should play by the same base rules. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter the intent, we're talking about unintended consequences here. Yes, I think en should be able to vote on its own exemption from whatever this enhanced enforcement might be, might open the door to. In a language project as self-governing as en, I don't see an issue with that, base rules-wise. El_C 13:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No amount of rewriting is going to remove all possible speculative worries, just as it hasn't in enwiki policy. Even with old enwiki PAGs you can see ANI discussions (often involving popular editors) where participants take interpretations of PAG clauses that fly in the face of how they've been applied for years and the obvious intent of the policy, and then the ANI is archived as "policy dispute" with no action taken. The converse also happens, where a given PAG permits any single action being discussed, but editors decide that the actions collectively, and considering the totality of the context, are problematic. Any behavioural policy on this site is always going to be enforced flexibly and as more of a 'living document'. PAGs are enforced by people, and how they're applied in a given discussion has always depended on who participates, sometimes without regard for their language. Aside from that, there's actually very little quotations from the UCOC provided to support most of the concerns articulated in this section. They don't even seem to be reasonable interpretations of the UCOC, which makes it difficult to even call them legitimate 'speculative worries'.

El C mentions above that the WMF are out of touch, but again, the WMF has no enforcement role, so how in or out of touch they are seems irrelevant. The U4C is–like ArbCom–an annually community-elected body. The WMF has no voting members on the U4C, unless they run as community members in community elections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Like the thing itself, that view is overly nuanced to the point of being impractical. The less real or perceived Foundation policy backing a WMF employee thinks they have at en (in parity or near-parity with other language projects), the less chance that they might bring about the next WP:FRAM 2.0 (in whatever form). Preventatively, then, let's just not. El_C 13:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't the UCOC actually prevent anything like a WP:FRAM 2.0? Presumably T&S found itself required to act because a) ArbCom didn't, and b) there exist no other bodies that can act. If there exists a structure creating a new (again, community-led) body that can deal with systemic issues, then WMF/T&S could've just referred the issue to it for a second opinion, and had no reason to act itself. Besides, as far as pretexts go, there's already the TOU which says the Foundation has enforcement discretion. The practical barriers to that is community approval of Foundation involvement, and that barrier remains whether a UCOC exists or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. Things often happen in practice different than they're supposed to on paper. I want to minimize the chance for a WMF employee to conflate enforcement actions in smaller language projects with ones unsuited for en. Obviously, ideally, they'd be safeguards and checks and feedback. But that doesn't always happen / in the best way. En users should at least have the right to choose. El_C 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Defenders of the guidelines have said this isn't what is supposed to happen, but the way the guidelines are written, literally any advanced permission holder can have their rights revoked if the U4C decides they didn't properly enforce the UCoC. Can you point me to where in the enforcement guidelines it gives that U4C this power? I thought I'd read it pretty carefully before I voted, and I didn't see this. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• The primary flaws in the UCOC/EG process are several, some inherent to the document, others to the process followed. The issues are primarily EG-based: the UCOC, while with flaws, is generally "livable with".

1. The EGs completely failed to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the accuser. It has anonymity provisions in almost every segment, but nothing on the rights of the accused to be heard, or to know the evidence against them, or for the community to know where the axe would fall. By all means, include a balancing test - in fact, I wrote a draft one for them, but they hardly had to take my standards. The RTBH was raised by over 40 individuals and was just...ignored.
2. The WMF overrode the obligations committed to in the process. We were assured that the drafting of the EGs would be an iterative process, prior to their ratification. Yet when we got the final policy text, a good 1/3 of it had never been seen before. @Xeno (WMF): said we'd get to review it, and then the WMF unilaterally decided "ah, sorry, we don't think there's enough time so you'll just need to wait a year". As the WMF has not indicated that the BOT forced the timeline, they are responsible for the shortage of time allotted to the process, and they've never explained why they couldn't just provide an additional timeslot for phase 2.
3. The UCOC policy text has no standing, as it has not been community ratified. Nor does using the strategy recommendations as a basis have any mandate, as they also did not get community ratification. Now the proposals by some above to desysop anyone who enforced the UCOC are absolutely mad - most of the text is in our policy text, so you'd be desysopping individuals carrying out en-wiki policy. However, in a discussion with T&S Policy, they indicated that no-one had raised the question of community ratification until phase 2 (the Arbcom open letter). I provided a diff in the middle of phase 1 between I, T&SP, and others, and they haven't responded to that point. @SNg (WMF): and I have had several discussions, and while I still feel several of her answers are not sufficient, this particular point hasn't received any follow-up.
4. The mandatory training - I'm not sure anyone could make training that is actually useful to everyone given that it has to work for our most experienced and the least experienced temporary admin in the entire movement. And if it's not useful for us, and just there to be box-ticking, then you're wasting our time and damaging the movement for the sake of...nothing, which is unacceptable. But more problematically, if also let's the Foundation, not the Community, get significant say in determining a "shared outcome" for similar style cases.
5. The EG's have what our more dramatic editors have called a "loyalty pledge". Now, it's immoral to be asked to sign it (there are more important obligations that I've adopted without signing them) but it's also immoral that new admins are forced to have obligations that old ones aren't, for the sake of pragmatically making it more acceptable. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote

Hi all - I work on the Movement Strategy and Governance team that supported the outreach for this vote. I'm re-posting a message from the senior manager of T&S Policy below. The message was originally posted to wikimedia-l and m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines#Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote and outlines the next step in the process: ("The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement.")
There is an upcoming Board Community Affairs Committee meeting 21 April 2022 at 10:00 UTC. I will share the concerns raised in this thread there. You are also welcome to attend or submit your questions in advance. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

---

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hello all,

We would like to thank the over 2,300 Wikimedians who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:

• 58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
• Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
• Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot

What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.

From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter's responses.

In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.

Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.

Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.

For more information regarding the results, please refer to the Results page.

Regards,

Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy

User:SNg (WMF) 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for information on reporting a complaint about an administrator

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

---

Apologies if this is not the correct place to ask, but I would appreciate knowing how and where to make a complaint about an administrator who has been making a number of untrue comments about my editing. Is there a particular place to do this? Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• If it's something you don't mind discussing in public, you could post the details right here. If you'd rather keep it off-wiki, you can contact the arbitration committee. See WP:AC#Contacting the Committee for instruction on how to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you Roy. Much appreciated. I will give this some more thought, especially if I continue to be treated with further untrue comments about my editing in edit summaries and on talk pages, coupled with reactionary block threats, by this particular administrator who seems to have article ownership issues. Afterwriting (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Please also note that if you do discuss it here, you have to notify the admin in question on his/her talk page. 93.172.232.172 (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that what's being got at is the six year long history of edit summaries such as:

• "Reply to dishonest warning." (end of last month)
• "Removed fake report." (referencing Special:Permalink/941876315#User:Afterwriting reported by User:EdJohnston (Result: ) presumably)
• "Hypocritical "warning" is noted and appropriately acted on."
• "Removed blatant hypocrisy by a habitually aggressive and dishonest editor."
• "Enough of this nonsense."
• "Try to develop some instead your habitual hypocritical behaviour."
• "Removing repeated hypocritical crap."
• "Removing hypocritical nonsense."
• "Pathetic!"

And in discussions of edit summaries:

• "stop being so insufferably self-righteous" (from a request to not do what is in the edit summary at Special:Diff/722280861)

The warning given explicitly referenced:

• "Removing illiterate "comments"."

Then there are these:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenn_Brodziak&date-range-to=2022-02-06&action=history&limit=48
• "your edit warring behaviour has been a complete disgrace"

Hello CorbieVreccan ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI : 1. My "Removed fake report" comment was about exactly that. It was a non-existent "report" added by cut and paste to my talk page by a disruptive IP editor who was adding BLP violations to an article such as this one. 2. The recent "Reply to dishonest warning" comment was in response to an editor who admitted that the warning was made incorrectly and apologised. 3. Most of my other impolite comments would have been made in response to editors who were being either repeatedly disruptive in various ways or who were blatantly misusing unjustified warnings in order to assert their own POV and to attempt to "warn me off" rather than for any legitimate reason. When I've received justified warnings from an administrator I have nearly always accepted them without any argument. Afterwriting (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

None of which excuses or justifies an administrator making a number of untrue comments about my recent edits to an article and also just reverting them even when they included some clear stylistic improvements. Whatever my faults have been in the past the behaviour of this administrator has been high-handed and also indicates article ownership issues. And accusing me of being uncivil by wrongly claiming that I had accused the administrator of lying is in itself uncivil and isn't acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't have the time to look into this, but from my experience an editor complaining about templated warnings they've received, even from an admin, doesn't tend to go well for the complaining party. At best, even if the warnings were completely unjustified it's lame, just ignore them (with or without reversions) and move on. While technically a false warning could be a personal attack, unlike an accusation in an edit summary or especially one at ANI, since it's primarily personally it isn't generally seen the same way.

And at worst, we often find those warnings weren't as unjustified as the editor suggests. And since all editors behaviour is scrutinised at ANI a WP:BOOMERANG can easily result. Note also it's reasonable to look at an editor's recent or persistent behaviour when issuing warnings. So for example, if an editor has persistently touched or even gone over the personal attack line, it's far more acceptable to give a level 4 or serious warning straight away. And likewise for more mild personal attacks.

An editor inappropriately issuing warnings is far more likely to be seen as a problem if it can be shown they've consistent issued inappropriate warnings to different editors. Or in the specific case of admins, far more serious would be if it can be demonstrated the admin was threatening to directly block an editor while involved or persistently threatening to block an editor for inappropriate reasons but that's not going to come from templates as these should not be interpreted as a threat of personally blocking the editor.

As for reversions, well WP:BRD always comes to mind whenever there's some dispute over reversions. Ultimately if the other editor is willing to discuss and had reasonable reasons for reversion most of the time (which doesn't have to mean they were correct), it'll be rare we'll sanction them for it, so it won't generally belong at ANI.

As always, if someone makes an edit or a series of edits with some improvements and some changes seen as harmful, we generally don't demand an editor reverting needs to pick through these to keep the good while removing the bad. There will be exceptions like BLP violation, but stylistics ones won't generally fall into that category. I mean ideally they should, but most of the time it's not ANI worthy if they don't.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As you can see from the diffs posted by Uncle G (thanks!), Afterwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of incivility, revert-warring, and blanking their talk page to hide the warnings. I've just recently encountered them doing punctuation and spelling changes on Two-spirit that change the forms of words used in the sources and cited quotes, and that go against the discussions we've had on talk. They don't appear to have read the talk page. While I appreciate that Afterwriting has good intentions, their edits I've seen are disruptive, and they respond to all feedback with hostility, personal attacks, and further disruption. After looking through their edit history further, I gave them a final warning on incivility as there's already been far too much of this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I want to acknowledge that I was wrong in one instance about some punctuation changes Afterwriting made. The WP:MOS is slightly different from some other style guides. This is not used consistently across WP, but the form Afterwriting used of periods after quotation marks does align with the WP:MOS in that instance. So when they changed it again, I let the second change on their part stand. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not accept that any of my edits to that article (apart from one typo) introduced, as you claimed, "multiple punctuation and grammatical mistakes" or that any of my edits, as you also claimed, were just my "preferred" style and were contrary to the MOS. There were no obvious mistakes or anything contrary to the MOS. Nor were there any spelling changes (unless adding hyphens to be consistent with the article name itself is a "spelling" change) that made any actual change to any sources or cited quotes. I also thought, apparently incorrectly according to your comments, that stylistic consistency within an article, which this article doesn't have, is actually a good thing and something to be encouraged in all articles. Expecting any editor to consult an article's talk page before making what seem to be very straightforward improvements is an unrealistic expectation. Regarding my editing history, my editing is not "disruptive" as you've claimed. Just the opposite in fact. I am nearly always a very constructive and responsible editor and my editing has consistently made numerous stylistic and other improvements to many articles over many years. I have rarely edit-warred, especially in recent years, and nearly all of the reversions I have made were clearly justifiable for MOS or policy reasons. And selecting some of the relatively infrequent instances, mostly from years ago, when I have responded to other editors with some uncivil comments, especially without any understanding of the context in which most of those comments were made (such as unjustified warnings by POV-pushing editors), does not give an accurate depiction of my overall editing behaviour at all. Also, like every editor, I am entitled to remove comments and warnings from my talk page and it is my preference to only keep comments on the page that I may want to come back to at some time. I don't see any point at all in keeping comments on my talk pages once they've served their purpose. That is my choice and it is not appropriate to attribute some kind of other motive to this preference. For the record here are the original so-called punctuation and grammatical "errors" which I was accused of making and which were reverted and the Two-spirit article talk page section on style uniformity so that other editors can judge for themselves just how much in "error" my editing was and whether the reversions and other claims about my editing were justified. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I see zero issues and largely agree with User:CorbieVreccan's actions and comments in this thread. Disagreement is the normal state on Wikipedia. User:Afterwriting needs to learn this and learn to disagree in a collegial manner (instead of hauling disagreements to AN). I'd be thinking trout instead of boomerang, but I see no reason for admin action in this thread. BusterD (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not "haul" any disagreement to ANI. I merely asked about the process for making a complaint about an administrator in case I wanted to do this. Others, for their own reasons, chose to make it an issue about my editing history instead. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Nobody should say on their user page that they do not suffer fools gladly unless they are damn sure that they are not a fool themself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

And how exactly is this comment not uncivil? Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: If you'd rather keep it off-wiki, you can contact the arbitration committee This is a common misconception. ArbCom will not here a case in private just because a user wants it to, there has to be a compelling reason that it has to be discussed privately, like confidential information, off-wiki evidence, etc. Anything that is entirely on-wiki can and should be discussed on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

3RR violation

(It's my first time posting here. If there is a more appropriate place to tell this, let me know)

Controversial Reddit communities edit history

User Caspian Delta seems to engage in bad faith edits in this post and other articles (where his contributions are quickly removed). Tetizeraz - (talk page) 10:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The best place to report edit warring is WP:ANEW. However, the user hasn't edited the page for a couple of days, and they have already been advised that discretionary sanctions are in place in that topic area. I'll give them some advise, if they do it again report them and they'll be prevented from editing. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thank you. If I happen to find another instance of users like this one, other than reporting at WP:ANEW, what kind of template should I use in their talk page? Tetizeraz - (talk page) 16:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's about Uyghur genocide specifically, you can use {{subst:Community sanction|sanction=|rationale=|topic=Uyghur}}. If it's edit warring in general, depending on whether the user is new or not, you could use {{subst:uw-ewsoft|Article}}, or {{subst:uw-ew|Article}}. Or you could just write them a message directing them to WP:EW and asking that they stop. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User rights removal request (Interstellarity)

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

---

Can you please remove all my user rights? I haven't been as active as I used to be and haven't been using the rights I have. I may request to have my user rights returned should I be active again. If in the event my account is hacked, I want to be confident that they don't have access to these rights since I do not monitor my account on a regular basis. Interstellarity (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. I have removed your various user rights. Thank you for your service. If you become active again, please feel free to request these back. --Jayron32 12:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing this. I still plan to edit on occasion, but I have been more of a reader than an editor these days. Have a great day! Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hello Jayron32,

  I would also like the autoconfirmed permission to be removed. I was wondering if this is possible and something you can do. Interstellarity (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM, that user right is automatic and cannot be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  As Johnuniq says above, this is not an admin-granted permission, so it cannot be taken away by admins. It's granted automatically by the software. I bet some hoops could be jumped through to get it removed involving stewards or something like that, but it's probably not worth it. --Jayron32 11:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your responses. Based on the responses above, I’m happy with keeping the autoconfirmed permission. It might be useful as time goes on. I’m content reading as well as editing Wikipedia on a reoccurring basis. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

AIV seems to be backlogged

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

---

About three dozen manual requests, and lots of other bot requests currently to be actioned on WP:AIV. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

To reverse an action

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

---

How should I take this? Majestic greetings. I don't handle very well at the enwiki. I wanted to find out if there is a board to reverse the action of a maintenance template this was placed on my talk page, which has absolutely no context.--Berposen (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:OWNTALK you can just remove it. You can remove anything from your own talk page, apart from few exceptions (declined unblocks while blocked is one). As to the message DS alerts are neutral, they are just to make you are aware that an area you editted in is under special restrictions. Eastern Europian articles are a hotbed of arguing and edit warring, so editors are expected to try and remain as civil as possible. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It would appear that the context for that alert was that you have been doing some significant editing on Azov Battalion which falls under those sanctions and looks to be getting rather heated today. There may need to be some admin attention there, honestly, from a look through recent activity. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Vandalism?

When I go to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and hover my mouse over "Australia" in the infobox, I get a gay-flag in the preview. Is that meant to be that way? 2600:8800:2C09:2F00:4E1:12EB:AE76:5C40 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Check now? I'm on a phone right now, so I can't hover over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

[32] < would leave a warning, but talk page is protected... 2600:8800:2C09:2F00:4E1:12EB:AE76:5C40 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, see [33]. It's probably a page purge issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't get how a change in the infobox of Australia can affect what one sees in the infobox at Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, regardless of any purging that needs to be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It was the hover over preview on the wikilink to Australia. I've seen a similar issue with regular vandalism showing up in the preview. Of I weren't on a phone right now I could pull up an example from the first time I saw it. A. C. Santacruz, do you remember that? I think you were trying to figure out out with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone

Grateful for an administrator to have a look at this edit [34]. I don’t really have a dog in the fight, and the allegations are clearly sourced. But I know we have to be very careful about these things. All good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators don't review content issues (as administrators). If you have concerns about some content issue, then open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Robert W. Malone and if you receive no response (unlikely in this case) or aren't satisfied, use some form of WP:Dispute resolution and none of the administrative noticeboards should be part of that. In this case, WP:BLP/N would probably be the best way to seek additional feedback if it's needed, or maybe WP:RS/N if it's particularly over the reliability of a source. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Really helpful, many thanks Springnuts (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting a blanket IP ban lifted temporarily (extremely temporarily) for edit-a-thons

Tracked on VRT
#2022041010000119

I posted this first at the Reference Desk and they directed me here. Please let me know if this should be on a different page. Copy pasted here, with some additional info:

Hello, I'm a librarian at San Diego Public Library. I ran an edit-a-thon a few weeks ago, and while we only got a few people, it was well-liked. We had one major hiccup: Our patron computer IPs and even our data-based IPs have been blocked from making new accounts for three major reasons: We use UC San Diego internet, we have a high school on two of our floors, and being a central downtown library, we have some very creative patrons who have their own struggles to contend with and occasionally make un-encyclopedic edits. Despite this hiccup, I'd still like to run more edit-a-thons in the future because it's a massively valuable program as far as reference, info literacy, and humanities-based education are concerned. I've been struggling to find solutions to this, as requiring participants to create an account off-site is not only a barrier to attendance and access, but unlikely to be done, leading to frustration upon arriving. In addition, if I applied for a blanket unbanning, I cannot guarantee delinquent behavior wouldn't happen again. Our wifi hotspots use the same blocked network and VPNs are too expensive. (And might get kind of close to ban evasion, though from the policy I've read it seems it isn't ban evasion as long as you specifically weren't banned?) So, with two potential solutions left, I want to know if it's possible to request temporary unbannings for the library IPs. Ideally just a 10 hour window where the library IP isn't banned from making new accounts. Would a request like this be feasible? If so, what page would I use to do this? It was suggested to me as well that I try and get IT involved as an IRT, but that is unlikely to happen at this time. The program just isn't a priority for other departments, which is fair.

I have been working with a user with account creation privileges, but he cannot bypass these ip bans either. Is it possible to get a location temporarily unbanned then rebanned? It is completely reasonable to have those IPs blocked, simply because of the nature of who those IPs are, but it is also blocking legitimate users who may not have internet access at home. I really want to make these edit-a-thons a recurring program, but the ip ban muddles things significantly. Please let me know if I can clarify anything. Thanks. --SDPLPauline (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey SDPLPauline — I think the first step here is figuring out which IP block(s) are affecting the library. Could you email us this information at info-enwikimedia.org and we'll go from there 🙂 ~TNT (talk • she/her) 00:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone properly close AFD vandalized by nominator?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twists_of_curves Five people said to Keep it, the nominator arguing with everyone, no one agreeing with him, so he closed it as "Whatever". Can an administrator go and fix that properly?

He also closed another AFD he started with Merge, and I don't care about that one, just someone starting an AFD then closing it seems like its against a rule somewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Westinghouse_Astronuclear_Laboratory Dream Focus 03:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also can someone tell him not to go through and remove a large number of links to an article he nominated for deletion which is still at AFD? I asked him to not do that at User talk:TenPoundHammer#removing links to an article that still exist after reverting some of them. Many of his edits are still not reverted though. Just checked and Search Engine Watch actually ended in keep so he needs to undo his removal to all links to it. Dream Focus 03:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• It wasn't "vandalised", he clearly withdrew it (he removed the tags). So I've reverted and closed it as Withdrawn. The Merge one I think is OK as it's effectively withdrawn as well and Merging isn't a discussion for AfD (the two things do appear to be the same organisation though). Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory as merge was appropriate when there are editors !voting keep (which can be implicitly read as "don't merge"). Yes TPH could have tried a bold merge instead of AfD, but that ship has sailed, and the existence of a closed AfD saying the "The result was Merge the two" falsely implies there was a consensus of multiple editors to merge, not just TPH's whim. In general I agree that it would be better if TenPoundHammer let AfDs run their course rather than self-closing them with idiosyncratic results. Pre-empting the result of AfDs he started by removing links as "unlikely to be saved"[35] is also disruptive (and pointless: if the AfD is closed as delete, XfDcloser will automatically remove all incoming links). – Joe (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Note TenPoundHammer was previously topic banned from deletion discussions in 2018–2019: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive300#TenPoundHammer XfD Topic ban appeal, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Appeal to lift topic ban, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Topic ban_appeal, part... II? III? MCVI?. – Joe (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  The idea to merge was WP:BOLD since I knew there was already a consensus to keep and was admitting my wrongs. Merging seemed like a no-brainer since both articles talk about different incarnations of the same building. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Unattributed article merger, authority control and Wikidata issues

Hi, I came across an article merger that remains unattributed at the destination page. Buddha (title) was merged into Buddhahood with Special:Diff/978231398 & Special:Diff/978230841 respectively. The merger is not attributed at the destination page. Also, the prior article (now a redirect) is already connected to a Wikidata item and has an authority control box in it. I don't know how to deal with it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 09:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the authority control just be removed? It was added almost a year after the article was made a redirect, and it's not needed there. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this! I repaired the attribution (WP:RIA) with a dummy edit and added {{Copied}} templates to the talk pages (contribs). Alternatively, there is the {{Copying within Wikipedia}} tag, but its Category:Possible CC BY-SA or GFDL violations due to copying within Wikipedia is not empty. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Libelous entry on Wikipedia entry for Thomas Palley

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

---

RE Wikipedia page THOMAS PALLEY {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Palley}

(1) I do not have the coding expertise to go through the process of correcting slanders against me.

(2) Wikipedia user AndyTheGrump {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump} has entered libelous accusations against me that I am an "avid apologist for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

(3) I have attempted to correct the entry which is that I have "openly questioned the US Government and mainstream media account of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

(4) AndyTheGrump keeps deleting my correction.

(5) Please restore my correction which states the position I hold. Additionally, I think AndyTheGrump should be banned from making changes to Wikipedia. Furthemore, it may be necessary to temporarily freeze my page until the intolerance triggered by the Ukraine war subsides.

Sincerely,

Tom Palley (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.168.24 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This can also be found at WP:ANI#The webpage describing Thomas Palley (myself), where it's gradually being processed. I'm sorry 71.126.168.24 but you're incorrect. AndyTheGrump has not added anything, but removed the sentence which was added recently. There's a number of reasons that neither the original sentence, nor the sentence as modified by you, belong in the lead of the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup. I removed entirely unsourced assertions regarding Palley's opinions regarding events in Ukraine, as required per WP:BLP policy. And that is all I have done to the article. Such unsourced material doesn't belong in the biography, regardless of whether it comes from unidentified IPs, regular Wikipedia contributors, or Palley himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Problematic edits by User:84.92.40.23

84.92.40.23 Is making contentious edits on coordinates of many articles (see their contributions), some of which have been reverted. I can't tell if this is sneaky vandalism, but I doubt that a troll would spend extended periods on something that will just get reverted. Wretchskull (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well Special:Diff/1082002373 seems to be in stark contrast to the above claims. It reduces precision from 6 decimal places to 3, and gives an explanation right there in the edit summary that pinpointing University College, Oxford down to less than a metre is inappropriate, which it is per Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines. It does seems silly as the place is definitely more than 1 metre large. This is even made explicit in the edit summary at Special:Diff/1080760801 that Brentwood, Essex is larger than 10 metres and the coördinates aren't even at the centre or some recognized civic building, but are apparently for a patch of a car park behind a Tides Home & Garden shop.

  Indeed, in reality the shoe is on the other foot with edits like Special:Diff/1082010327. On what basis, Wretchskull, are you locating the University of Oxford precisely, to within approximately 1 decimetre, inside but off-centre of the Weston Library?

  Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wretchskull, I have notified the IP editor of this discussion on their talk page. The University of Oxford and University College, Oxford edits look like attempts to tackle unreasonable precision, but a link to the precision guidelines in the edit summary would be helpful, as would be answering the query on their talk page. TSventon (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, this edit moved the coordinates out of the city into the sea (and note that the precision guidelines say that "cities must be specified with a precision of degrees, minutes and seconds to respect historical norms" [my emphasis]), and this one moved them off the castle itself. I don't think that this is "sneaky vandalism"; the edits appear to be made in good faith, but there's such a thing as reducing coordinate precision too much. The IP seems to have gone rather overboard in his or her reading of WP:OPCOORD. Deor (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Too much precision for places makes no sense. However, I think distances from Oxford are measured from Carfax, the major cross-road in the centre, not the castle. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all the responses! I have poor knowledge of coordinates and I was uncertain about the validity of the edits. I'm sure it's done in good faith but I decided to get some input from editors more experienced with the subject. Thank you again and have a good one - Wretchskull (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Heated discussion between two editors

Can an administrator perhaps keep an eye on this discussion, checking that WP:PERSONAL is not violated (too much). Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Some of the behaviour by Dakota Allie L. there is already beyond the pale, see for instance this comment. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I was considering going to ANI myself over this if the insults continued. Funcrunch (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I left a warning. That indeed is over the line. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Drmies - You beat me to it. ;-) Some users have taken to collapse that part of the discussion - I removed it. It is full of personal attacks, and very uncivil insults, tone, and demeanor. It has absolutely no place here, hence into the "remove pile" it goes! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, thanks--I was wondering about that too but didn't have the time to look at it more carefully. In hindsight (20/20) I should have done that too. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Drmies - No worries! You can't be expected to do everything around here. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I didn't think it was my place to remove the discussion, so I chose the second best option which was to hide it. Thanks for deleting it, though. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 03:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Isabelle - No problem. The buck has to stop somewhere, right? So, I figured I'd be "that user" and do what really is needed. I really don't think anyone is going to run here and make a compelling argument as to why it should be kept. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Marcocapelle - Thanks for bringing this to our attention. There were a couple of editors who responded solely based out of personal emotions, thoughts, and feelings. I've responded to both of them. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Drmies: Unfortunately she is continuing the attacks on trans people. I recognize that she's trans herself (as am I), but this is absolutely unacceptable and I request you strongly consider a block at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Funcrunch - The user has been blocked for 36 hours for repeated incivility and personal attacks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you. Though based on her latest talk page remarks I think this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Funcrunch (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion seems to have been posted on Twitter, which seems to be why Dakota Allie L. and some other new accounts and sleepers have found it. Given that she hasn't edited anything outside of this discussion and given the content of her edits I doubt much will be lost by an indef here. Pinguinn 🐧 02:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Indef - Given this user's comments, especially the one noted above by Pinguinn, they are only here to right great wrongs, POV-push, and insult anyone who disagrees with them. They are not here to collaboratively edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

(Needs Attention) Close review - "She" for ships

The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"She" for ships was closed with a consensus to change the MOS guideline, but retain usage in existing articles unless sources show such a usage is not preferred in relation to that specific ship. This close has multiple problems, and was discussed by others on the closer's talk page. I think it should be overturned to no consensus based on the following:

1. There simply was nowhere near enough support for a change to justify a change to the guideline. Participants were very evenly divided, and neither side's arguments are much stronger than those of the other: some cite competing style guides, some cite other types of works besides style guides, arguments and counter-arguments about how this is or isn't an acceptable use of gendered language, ...: in short, nothing decisive)
2. The proposed solution is a novel one which was not suggested or espoused by any suggested by only very few of the participants (there were plenty of arguments stating that this minor style change was not worth the trouble; and there were of course arguments to rewrite the guideline, but I fail to see much of anybody supporting both of these somewhat contradictory outcomes). As such, it would be something of a WP:SUPERVOTE - yes, probably a good faith attempt to reach a compromise, but one which had not been much discussed during the discussion, nor one around which an agreement by participants of the discussion was formed.
3. In light of the above two, given there was no clear outcome from the discussion, and that the proposed closure is incorrect, the only proper outcome is to close this as "no consensus", because there wasn't one.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. But perhaps the best thing to do would be to revert the non-admin close and ask for an admin close?North8000 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: WP:NOBIGDEAL. Whether the closer was an admin or not is not, IMHO, a relevant factor. In fact, we most certainly want (experienced) non-admins to make closes when those don't require admin tools, and when they are done in a proper way (and it also serves as perfect practical training for future admins). I would not support reverting any close merely on that technicality, and I have intentionally not mentioned that in my rationale here, because I don't think it's a valid one. And even admins occasionally make bad closes (at RfCs or elsewhere), for what it's worth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on all of that. But to argue the opposite side, from a pure closing standpoint, we're saying that it is an erroneous close. On average, an admin is less likely to to make a close in error than a non-admin, it could be the easiest most logical next step? Or to put it another way, what action would you expect from this venue? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Struck my comment. A review here by multiple persons is a good way to go. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Your second point is incorrect; the result was suggested by a participant. Thryduulf wrote "Use "it" in most situations. "It" should be the default, but "she" should be allowed if a clear majority of recent sources (specialist or general) use that (if there is no clear majority for either, then use "it"), and obviously allow it in direct quotes. "It" is simply the overwhelming contemporary style in general sources, and Wikipedia is contemporary general purpose source. However, don't edit war and don't mass-change articles. (or nearly exactly what I said last time)." This statement aligns with what I found the consensus to be. Heartfox (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Corrected. It might have been suggested by a few participants, but it doesn't seem to have garnered the kind of support (or the significant amount of discussion) that would make it a consensus. As for comments regarding "contemporary style", there are plenty of guidelines which do not favour any style explicitly but simply say (and, experience will prove, are correct) that the simplest and most effective solution - to avoid edit wars and/or any wasteful discussions over it - is simply to stick with whatever was first present in the article (MOS:ERA, MOS:ENGVAR, ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn and reclose as No Consensus largely per OP. This appears to be a remarkably poor reading of consensus. (Full Disclosure: I am INVOLVED and opposed the proposed changes to MOS.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not involved, but I agree with point #2. Also, the close contains variants of "therefore ... there is also a consensus" (etc), but their determination of consensus doesn't clearly follow from the preceding sentence, and it's not otherwise clear how the closer reached these conclusions. The closer's responses to questions/concerns on their talk isn't too illuminating, and their position seems a bit inconsistent. Unless they can explain the reasoning better here, I'd suggest they let someone else take a shot at closing it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm involved here as I supported the change and believe there was consensus for a change as discussions are not votes and all that. What I don't see is how a closer could find consensus for the change but also mandate an RFC-level discussion for every single ship article. Calidum 19:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how NOTAVOTE could justify a finding of consensus despite the lack of any clear majority here. Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. (from WP:CLOSE). The close does not explain why that would apply, nor can I find evidence of why that would apply. There might be a few arguments, on both sides, based purely on personal opinion - but discarding those wouldn't dramatically affect the outcome: once all the other arguments are taken into account, none are so convincing that they make others irrelevant, and none appear to have been convincing enough to a majority of the participants, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  NOTAVOTE applies because comments like "Why do we even need to have these discussions?", "If you don't like the English language, others are available", "We need not reduce everything to bland, flavourless, wikistyle devoid of all colour and whimsy", "Personally I see it as a bit of harmless fun", "Soon everything will be boring objects", etc., etc. should carry little weight in a discussion. Ditto for the countless reminders that the last RFC on this matter was "only" two years ago. Calidum 20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  There were invalid arguments on both sides: Support this change - it's simply plain English (editor opinion); This will change on Wikipedia eventually, it's just a matter of time (a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?); It's outdated, plain and simple. We find both in print, but we all know which way the future is leaning (a mix of both of the above - so both forms are found in sources, but one is "outdated, plain and simple"?). Even if all such similar arguments are disregarded, there remain plenty of valid arguments on both sides, which is why it cannot be said that either has a convincing strength of argument to support it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Calidum: Where is an "RFC-level discussion" mandated? Assessing usage of one variant or another (e.g. regarding capitalisation, national variety of English, etc.) is done day in day out in informal discussions on talk pages and in RM discussions, and I don't see anything in the close that implies discussions about she vs it would or should be held to a different standard. (disclosure: I supported the change, but have not looked to see whether the close reflected consensus and so I am explicitly expressing no opinion on that). Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  The closer didn't specifically refer to future article level discussions as RFCs; I'm presuming that would be the case based on how stubborn users can be before changes are implemented. To use your page move analogy, note that only controversial moves require an RM; pages can and are moved without one. An RM is not required for every single page move, and a discussion should not be required before changing every ship's pronouns. Calidum 19:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn ( I was not involved) I think there was no consensus to change. They tried to craft (or select a minority) a "middle of the road" solution, a nice move in most other venues but a super-vote in the context of a closer. Overturn either to "no consensus to change" or else to needing a new close by and experienced admin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Along with, during the overturn, thanking the previous closer for their work and efforts. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved—ambivalent about the MOS and downright uninterested in ships!—but as I wrote earlier, bore I knew of this discussion, Considering, as the closer notes, there's only slightly more editors supporting the MOS change than those in favour of keeping the status quo, that's one helluva brave close from Heartfox; I certainly don't see—nonobstante NOTAVOTE etc—the overriding strength of arguments necessary to enable ruling in favour of the proposal.
  I.e., overturn to no consensus. No issue with the {{nac}}; per WP:NACRFC, ny non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.^{But without getting into the minutaie as to whether this even was an RfC, either...} SN54129 19:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn per RandomCanadian and several other opposers. I have just stumbled across this, am uninvolved and don't much care how it turns out, but it seems a staggeringly inappropriate close. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I supported the change, but I don't see a consensus emerging from this discussion. Editors couldn't even come to an agreement on how to evaluate usage in sources, let alone the relative weighting of policies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn no consensus - the conversation very much ran its course, but it's also clear there isn't any consensus unless you count votes which we don't do. Also since it seems the question changed during the discussion, and the result wasn't an outcome of the question, it all seems just wrong not even counting the no clear consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn & Close as "No Consensus" - In the closer's own words: "slightly more editors supporting the MOS change than those in favour of keeping the status quo", makes it clear there was no consensus in this lengthy, (at times highly-charged) and controversial debate. (ftr I !voted) - wolf 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• (involved comment) Overturn to no consensus - I just don't see how there is a consensus to this discussion - no argument really "won out", and there are policy-based arguments for both sides. Hog Farm _Talk 20:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (involved comment) - this was a pretty clear no-consensus to me Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (involved) - there is no clear consensus, with both those supporting and opposing presenting strong arguments. Further, the RfC was flawed, being led for the first four days by a non-neutral statement, during which time the majority of !voters commented - when this non-neutral statement was removed, there was a strong swing towards oppose, suggesting that the statement did predispose editors towards a specific viewpoint, meaning the RfC should be closed as no consensus on those grounds alone. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus or new closure by admin panel. I come to this discussion, especially this discussion, with many preconceptions. I was born in a naval hospital, lived either on base or in family quarters, raised by a senior CPO and his very CPO wife. My first job, selling Navy Times in Pearl Harbor, involved boarding as many ships as possible, selling papers and getting tipped from enlisted and commissioned adults, heroes to me. Hundreds of vessels, tens of thousands of sailors. Then my dad retired and I didn't see the ocean again for six years. For the first time I lived among non-military families. It took time to accept any such existed. Other readers will may come to these pages with preconceptions they either don't recognize, didn't announce, or refuse to confront. I don't blame them; we share different experiences. There's a reason I digress so thoroughly. This non-admin close situation massively fails both BADNAC #2 and NACPIT #1. No matter what outcome the closer came to, no matter who the single closer was, this discussion on this board was going to occur. King Solomon wouldn't close this alone. Not foreseeing that is a disqualification for closing the discussion at all. reading this discussion, preconceptions on this issue appear deep and powerful. And mostly unconscious. There are reasons why ENGVAR exists. Regional variations in the English language are not merely taught and learned, they are felt. Unconsciously. Trying to enforce New England English on an Australian is just never going to work. Salt and lubber the same. Sorry for the length of this post. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  BADNAC doesn't apply to non-deletion venues. Izno (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  BADNAC and NACPIT are not policy but are part of an essay on all types of discussions, this would be a concern with the second cautionary reason to avoid with non admin closures it is still a valid point and valid reason to request an overturn of any discussion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  As I've explained in my first reply above to North8000, we actually do want experienced non-admins to close discussions when possible. The problem is when the closure is not appropriate, and that happens both to admins and to non-admins. If an admin had made the exact same closure, the arguments for overturning it would be very much the same. Adminship is not a big deal, and it's not diplomatic immunity either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn and do new closure by a panel. This was an extremely contentious discussion that took a lot of time and energy from editors. Given this, it's probably best to do a panel close by a few experienced discussion closers. The use of a panel should reduce the risk of a supervote. And don't forget there is WP:DFD in case the closers need a place to discuss. The board is ripe for new participation. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:F4E8:3E1B:616:B8B3 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think having a panel close is worth the effort. There plainly was no consensus: having the close reviewed by the community here is as good as any panel. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yup, that was the wrong close. Overturn to no consensus per everyone above. There's no need for a panel to look at it when the whole AN is reviewing it.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Book-read-white-bear-blue-toy-844152-pxhere-com.jpg

A bear reading the style guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

Is that a limo? Why would a bear need a limo? She is a beaut, though — the limo, not the bear. Okay, also the bear. El_C 12:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: that's a locomotive. SN54129 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Are locomotives also she? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In Hebrew, a locomotive is a he, but a train is a she. Down with the rail patriarchy! Now, about that limo... El_C 02:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Und in Deutsch, "Lokomotive" is feminine and "Zug" is masculine... Same in French [words the same spelling as in English: pronunciation, of course, a whole different ball game] (which doesn't have a neuter gender). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• I see that izno mentioned Bringing actual style guides to bear, which seemed like a good idea, so I'm doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's a cute picture. :) 2601:647:5800:1A1F:F4E8:3E1B:616:B8B3 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus (not involved) If ever there were no consensus, this is as clear an example as ever existed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn, but not to no consensus. I kept track, there's a sizeable numerical majority for preferring it (55% to 45%, 76-63) and if I weren't involved, I'd say the our more general rules on the use of pronouns and external style use in general works prefer it, which is what our MOS takes after. Either way, it should be a full reclose, not decided ad hoc at this forum. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that 55% is a "sizeable" majority. In the US that'd be called a swing district. And besides, discussions are not votes to begin with (and if 55% was a "sizeable" majority, there would be far less no consensus closes than there actually are...). The counterpart to what you're saying is that Wikipedia rules generally don't care about English variety or stylistic choices like that, so long the article is internally consistent; and I think there are plenty of arguments and evidence which shows that both sides of this are defensible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:V, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors". In this case, I viewed "content" to be "she" or it", and I viewed there to be a consensus for both style guides and specialized sources as examples of "previously published information". Editors tended to argue for the legitimacy of one or the other, not that one or the other was illegitimate. I don't think multiple forms of legitimate previously published information means there is no consensus for either. People seem to be missing what the close is about. It does not ban "she"—it defers to the sources. If the relevant sources use "she" for a particular ship, then that's what could be used. Likewise for "it". But if "she" is used, it could be expressed to readers in some way why it is so, because it is an unfamiliar/confusing appellation.

All this close is about is that when "she" is used it should be clear to unspecialized readers why it is so. There was no consensus to change all "she" to "it" (as is noted in the close... I don't know what people mean when they support overturning this close to "no consensus"—this was a "no consensus" close in regard to changing all "she" to "it"). The thing is, there was a consensus that "she" for ships is an unfamiliar/confusing term to unspecialized readers/editors. I can't ignore this consensus just because it wasn't directly asked in the RfC question, which, as others have noted, was not even what guided the discussion to begin with. Heartfox (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:V applies to verifiable matters of fact in articles (such as saying that HMS Victory was at Trafalgar), not ruling whether the ship is a "she" or an "it" (for the record, Victory is absolutely "she", but that's not relevant to the close challenge here), which is stylistic decisions (there are plenty of places where one would expect to diverge from sources on style if one were to follow the MOS for internal consistency). there was a consensus that "she" for ships is an unfamiliar/confusing term to unspecialized readers/editors. No there wasn't. There were plenty of valid arguments that both forms are legitimate (as evidenced by usage in different forms of reliable sources). Given that, it's simply incorrect to conclude that one of the forms is "unfamiliar" or "confusing". There was plenty of back and forth on it, but I don't see the strength of argument, or the numerical support, to establish consensus. That ships (or other inanimate objects, or other concepts which technically don't have a gender) may be referred to in the feminine is a well known quirk of the English language (as many oppose !voters at the RfC argued). That ships are referred to in the feminine in plenty of reliable sources (such as history books) is another, presented by again a fair amount of oppose !voters. These certainly seem to be valid arguments, and I don't see how they can be ignored. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus: Only a small minority of editors even touched on whether "she" is a specialised usage, so I don't see how there was any consensus on that point. And the closer admits there was no consensus to outright ban "she". (Full Disclosure: I voted against the proposed change) Ficaia (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Does anyone here dispute any of the following?
  1. Most style guides favor "it"
  2. Most editors favor "it"
  3. Our guidelines (MOS:GNL) already favor "it"

Does anyone think any of these three things will change at any point, ever? This is one of those perennial proposals where we all know it's gonna pass eventually (remember Kiev/Kyiv?), so why call 55% no consensus and delay what is obviously inevitable? (I am involved and supported the RfC.) Levivich 02:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No. 1 was quite explicitly disputed by many at the RfC, of which a good share argued that style guides are not the sine qua non of usage and that plenty of sources, do, in fact, favour "she". No. 2 is, self-evidently, not correct (given the number of editors - including those who write the actual articles about ships - who actually do favour "she") and also an ad populum. No. 3 is wrong. MOS:GNL quite explicitly says Ships may be referred to using either neuter forms ("it", "its") or feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. - which seems quite in line with other guidelines such as MOS:RETAIN, and with the very pragmatical advice of WP:AINTBROKE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I also find the argument that "it's gonna pass eventually" entirely unconvincing. A similar RfC was proposed a couple of years ago, and the result was not different from this one: in fact many of the arguments were the same, many of the participants were the same, and the margin was also very similar. If asking the same question at 2 1/2 years interval yields basically the same answer, I don't see what justification there would be to think that asking it again in x years is going to bring about a different one. Short, of course, of the ever so popular self-fulfilling prophecy... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to "no consensus". A good-faith attempt, but still a bad interpretation of consensus by the OP Original Closer. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean "by the original closer?"North8000 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

...yes-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

SNOW ACTION? seems that this discussion at least has clear consensus, can an uninvolved admin action on this? Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I was coming here expecting to close this discussion but I don't think it's actually snowing. There is a clear consensus that the current close should not stand. What's not clear is if it should be straight changed to no consensus or if it should be re-closed with more recent comments in this discussion leaning towards a re-close. So I think this should probably be given another day or two to see where the discussion is at because whether it's declared a no consensus (which would also mean there's no closing statement, just a link to this discussion) or is declared in need of a new close (with no consensus being the most likely, but not only, outcome but which would have a closing statement that might be helpful for the future) does seem material to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn Full disclosure: I participated, and while the closer did enact a result I favored, I cannot deny that it is difficult to read the discussion as anything except "no consensus" one way or the other. This should probably be overturned.--Jayron32 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn In English, a consensus is "the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". A narrow majority is quite the opposite. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Wikipedia's defines consensus differently. Per WP:DETCON "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Calidum 17:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    And as shown previously, the quality of arguments was here and there on both sides. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    • We get it, you don't like the close. Calidum 17:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn because ships are female. (Unless they have expressed another preference, in which case of course we wouldn't want to upset the ships feelings.) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Reclose uninvolved, no to a two word close there is too much in that discussion for a two word close Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's always possible to link to this discussion; or for whoever closes this to write a short a thoughtful summary of the concerns with the original close when it's overturned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not good enough. The close of that discussion should cover the arguments, sources, policies, guidelines and sub issues. That is the only way to move forward with such an extensive discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I doubt a single closer can do a better job than the community at AN (i.e. here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to No Consensus - Even by the closer's own words, this was fairly evenly split, which indicates there isn't a clear consensus to make a change. Perhaps in good faith, but seems to lack the experience to close complicated RFCs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's obvious where this is going, so I'll just comment on the "good faith" part of Dennis's comment. A core tenet of this project is WP:BOLD. Intrinsic in that is the acceptance that not every bold move will be correct. When it's not, we just fix it and move on. So, @Heartfox don't feel bad. You made a good effort, and that's appreciated. If it didn't work out, well, the only way to get better is to make mistakes and learn from them, and that's how the project keeps growing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  I have changed the close now. Heartfox (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest Close This Review has been open for most of two days and consensus is overwhelming. It's time to lower the curtain and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem: (and everyone else, if they hadn't noticed) The closer has altered their closing statement (although I think it lacks a bolded "no consensus" somewhere). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

All the more reason to close this. I am not a fan of piling on once consensus is clear. The closer acted in good faith. Let's not rub salt in any wounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: The problem is that the closer's remarks are lenghty, and the added statement that it's now a no-consensus is in the middle of them. Shouldn't it be placed at the top or bottom, to make it more clear what the outcome was? As to rubbing salt in wounds, I don't see how a minor modification would be a slight against the closer. - wolf 05:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I'm not suggesting no modification. I'm suggesting that we have a very strong consensus here and it's time to close the discussion. The closer , who IMO should probably be an admin, can handle the closing statement on the RfC however they wish, consistent with the clear consensus here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the purpose of my previous comment was not to pass judgement, or otherwise opine, about the closer, or the subject of that RfC or even this discussion. It was really just a question; don't closing statements typically begin with something like: "The result of this discussion was no consensus", (or "keep", "delete", "merge", etc. - in bold)...? It just makes it easier for people, than hunting through the closer's remarks. Anyway, like I said, just a question. And either way, this is likely my last comment here. Thanks - wolf 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The 2019 close result was neither at the beginning nor bolded. Heartfox (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Merely because someone in the past did the wrong thing, doesn't bind everyone to continue to do the wrong thing forever. --Jayron32 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SMI violation?

Hi everyone! I hope you're all having a great day, and that life is treating you well! :-) Is this kind of content allowed? It's zalgo text, which can cause issues with page, interface, and text rendering for some users on older browsers or hardware and in other situations. Per WP:SMI, we don't allow any kind of disruptive text or content that may interfere with the MediaWiki interface, or cause elements and content to be harder to read or navigate through. RD3 also allows for "browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS" to be redacted. These are the two policies / references that come to mind in regards to whether or not this user box is acceptable, but I'm wondering if this might be considered a "reach". Hence, why I am here, and my question: Is this kind of content (zalgo text) acceptable? Or do you believe that it is disruptive and, hence, should be redacted, removed, or deleted? I'd be interested in your thoughts, and I thank you in advance for sharing your input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah seems to be capable of disrupting the interface, for example on w:en:User:BiscuitsToTheRescue it overlaps the control bar. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CrazyMinecart88/user zalgo opened for more input. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Great link, Xaosflux - thank you! This is exactly what I'm talking about. Zalgo text, to me, is disruptive in that it disrupts the MediaWiki interface, content organization, and impacts how users interact with the page it's linked to (some users are impacted much more-so than others, of course). In the end, it serves no positive purpose, and I don't believe that it's acceptable here. But, who knows! The community may feel differently, which is why I opened a discussion here about it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said at the MFD, it can also be disruptive for screen reader users like me (see this technical village pump thread). Graham87 06:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Do not know whether this is related or not, but yesterday I blocked 95.58.136.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalism which included inserting zalgo text to pages where it was clearly not appropriate. After this block, the user went to my Russian Wikipedia talk page (why?) and vandalised it with zalgo text twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Sounds like a really stand-up person. :-P Also, RD3'd. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a link to make clear to all what zalgo text even is... Sandstein 14:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us who are technologically challenged? (I remember the first time I saw and used an electric pencil sharpener and thinking "this is the future.") -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandal

Can somebody please take a look at IP editor 2409:4043:2D1E:7B71:8EC0:BAC1:D440:2742, who just vandalised the coin noticeboard for some reason. NOT here to do good work anyway. scope_creep^Talk 06:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Scope creep - Warned user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about UPE (renamed from Misuse of powers)

The page Draft:BoAt Lifestyle is already accepted twice in AFC submission, but still, the page is been sent back to draft by Hatchens who is already been warned in past [36]. Initially, I thought he is admin, but he is not. Its a clear way to create a deadlock and disruption of Wikipedia. It seems like I should not submit any page in AFC in future due to such improper draftification. I am Sorry.Rickinmorty (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rickinmorty; Thank you!, I acknowledge the tag and talk page update. The page was draftified by me becauase you reverted Praxidicae's draftification move and moved it back to mainspace without waiting for an another AfC review. Besides that, you have 109 103 edits in your history so how come you know to use "Draft re cat" script? Well, will wait for others' opinion and then I'll chip in further. - Hatchens (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• The problem here is that User:Nomadicghumakkad accepted the draft in this edit. He should not have done that: it wasn't ready for mainspace. There's scope for scrutiny of Nomadicghumakkad's other AfC passings, I think, because his standards are pretty far from where mine would be. I think Hatchens was right to re-draftify.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm with S Marshall on this which is why I draftified it in the first place. I'm not going to fully debate the merits of said article here but the sources are piss poor - mostly press releases, dubious and unreliable blackhat SEO outlets and WP:MILL. I too question Nomadicghumakkad's AFC editing but I don't have the mental or physical energy to bring it to a noticeboard myself. I also don't know where this recent idea i'm seeing everywhere came from, but AFC is not insulation against deletion. CUPIDICAE💕 17:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Also I am skeptical of the creators motivations here as well, but that's for COIN. That being said, I find it funny that several of the sources are just copies of one another and generally written by the same "author". CUPIDICAE💕 17:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note that this article has been created by multiple sock farms in the past (User:Northern Escapee and User:Agastya11) and has been moved to various titles and is likely tied to WP:UPE.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Lets not get distract. The question and topic of this thread is about draftifying. Praxidicae draftification was fair. But Harchens draftification was against policy. In WP:DRAFT it is written, A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc. It had been moved to draft a single time already. So it is against policy to draftify again. They should have deleted it. No one is saying AFC is insulation. It is not even the point. The point is wrong draftification and going against policy even after being warned. The current draft is well sourced with neutral language. Rickinmorty (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that, after all of the comments here in this thread, Hatchens' move to draft space is no longer unilateral. You say we shouldn't get distracted, but that means you're asking us to look at the more minor issue here and ignore the bigger issue. It's a "beam in your own eye vs. the mote in someone else's" kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) When you bring an issue to ANI, you can expect all aspects of the issue to be examined. In this case, I see an article that has a long history of socking and UPE editing created with full referencing markup by an editor with two previous edits. Add that to the creation of several articles of individuals of dubious notability, and it's not surprising that editors and AfC reviewers who deal with paid editing day in and day out have reservations about your drafts. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not to be that person, but does anyone else find the timestamps suspicious here? We have first submission template added, the eventual first reviewer editing the article 9 minutes after that, then after another intervening edit by OP, accepting it 8 minutes later. For the second go-round, we have the submission for review here, and then acceptance the very next minute? I'm not super familiar with the AfC standards and timelines, so if that's not weird or suspicious, fair enough. But that doesn't sound legit to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Writ Keeper you're not wrong and it is all very suspect, including Nomadic's acceptance but also Behind the moors which is without a doubt another paid account. There are multiple firms taht operate accounts like this that manage to get AFC (and some even NPR) that get paid to literally accept spam articles. I can say with certainty that BTM is one of those accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The creating an article one word at a time to balloon edit count certainly is suspicious. This seems like EC gaming at the very least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

[37] [38] [39] Well this is no good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

And here's the accepting reviewer, participating in the same AfD as Northern Escapee - a sock who previously edited Draft:BoAt Lifestyle.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like it might need a checkuser. Draft:PharmEasy seems to be another example like Draft:BoAt Lifestyle ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

PharmEasy is absolutely some UPE garbage. I wish I could find where I saved the adver for Boat Lifestyle...CUPIDICAE💕 20:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Especially odd on an article that needs a random capital letter to avoid the logs at Draft:Boat Lifestyle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't want to reveal too much but this is known to many of us who are active in identifying UPE/spam wrt these firms operations. This and this (the last vote is from another Sanketio sock just like Ponyo linked) and this are another excellent example like what Ponyo pointed out. Unfortunately CU isn't often reliable in these cases because 1.) it is often numerous people because it's part of a firm and 2.) the location where they're coming from is a shitshow CU wise (for lack of a better description.) It flies under the radar when paid editors vote delete in articles, because well, why would someone get paid to do that? Here's the reason: it's usually a competitors job/awarded offer and because they bid on it, at least on Freelancer and some other sites, they can see who the client actually is. CUPIDICAE💕 20:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

And of course this gem which includes both the reviewers in question agreeing with each other...CUPIDICAE💕 20:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note that I've blocked Behind the moors and GA99 as related accounts (whether it be closely-connected WP:MEAT or the same person). I think the issues with Nomadicghumakkad need to approached from a different angle. There have been concerns raised regarding their acceptance of articles not ready for article space and overlap with a number of UPE sock accounts, but they're not technically related to Behind the moors/GA99. As Prax mentions above, CU is a shitshow when it comes to this extensive web of UPE.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Ponyo: then you ought to look at this particular AfD 1 where Nomadicghumakkad's "miraculous AfC approval" had been discussed (as far as I can recall, it was the same situation as explained above by Writ Keeper, pinging TheAafi for more clarity) and then have a look at the RattanIndia's current edit history, where GA99 and Sonofstar are the common denominators. A similar AfD 2, where Cunard is a common denominator when checked with RattanIndia's edit history and Afd 3 where Nomadicghumakkad and Chess are common denominators. Besides that, what is the most common activity among all these IDs? They all work on substandard company pages; do controversial edits, execute controversial AfC approvals (No idea of NPP), if pages are nominated for AfD, then they try to twist the narrative like in this AfD 4, where Cunard and Inchiquin are the common denominators. Now, if we connect the dots, in each above mentioned AfDs, one can find three editors (Nomadicghumakkad, Chess and Rickinmorty) who have dragged me to ANI on 3 different occasions - 1st one, 2nd one and this is the 3rd one; based on self-twisted interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and in some cases, playing the victimization card. This coordinated targeting makes the whole matter quite apprehensive. Despite knowing all this (also knowing about controversial AfC approval of Draft:BoAt Lifestyle), I decided to follow Timtrent's advise and tried to stay away from it... till they openly challenged Praxidicae's draftification on the basis of past two "controversial" AfC approvals. - Hatchens (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. To me that was a well enough judged action. Different actions are available, of course, but this one has worked and brought it to the fore. Nothing else to add here except "Please can we slam the sock drawer shut on their fingers?" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• I had no plans to come back any time soon but looks like I must (once again justifying, sigh.). These notes are for the closing admin and not a response to any editor. I do not intend to justify to other editors or engage in arguments since these conversations cause me undue anxiety.

Boat was reviewed/accepted with several other submissions made by same editor. Check the interaction here [40]. After Praxi moved it to drafts, I suspected if I was wrong in my review and reached out to Highking to discuss it along with another page that I had draftified. Check here [41]. They didn't give a positive response to my perspective of notability, hence left it in the drafts. What happened post that, none of my business. I didn't even want to come online for a long time.

Pharmeasy is not really garbage. If we see the talk page Draft talk:PharmEasy, notability was discussed and it was agreed that it is notable. Frankly, my understanding of notability has been mostly okay. Also, at times, it hasn't been (just like for other reviewers) and I have agreed and disagreed with folks - all of which is a part of the process. At times, there have been loops of understanding where I first thought it was notable, then thought it wasn't and nominated for deletion and then AFD resulted in Keep, indicating that my first review was indeed correct, at Falguni Nayar.

If I accept articles and others feel it was not the right move, NPP reviewers (or others) can nominate them for deletion. That's why that layer exists. Notability, as much as we choose to believe, is not black and white. Hope this helps. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Does this whole matter belong at SPI, then? N.B. I personally am convinced that Cunard isn't a sock or meat puppet but a good faith, highly inclusionist, highly prolific participant at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Cunard? How did his name come up? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  In Hatchens' post, above: suspicion exists because he's said keep in AfDs where alleged UPE editors said keep.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  No way Cunard is a sock or in league with those guys. He's one of the better wikipedians out there even if (when) we don't see eye-to-eye. I don't see any real connection between Cunard or any other editor and the overlap with those editors is small. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• If there is *any* issue with a draftification, put it back in mainspace and AfD it. Use of draftspace and AfC is *optional*. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  But you can see why it's attractive to UPE editors. By using AfC they can select who the patroller is.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  COI editors are told to use AfC. UPE editors are told to disclose. Regardless, a disputed draftification goes to AfD, not AN. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with SJ. In the case of Draft:BoAt Lifestyle, this is an interesting submission. First declined and rejected by RPSkokie, and then all of a sudden Nomadic approves it, with which Prax disagrees, hence the submission is draftified again, though I believe it should have been straight away sent to AfD. Following this, it is once again approved by, now blocked, Behind the moors and then again draftified by Prax. Rickinmorty shouldn't have engaged in move-warring, but instead heard what Prax was telling them. If Hatchens reverts their false-move to mainspace, I don't see a problem with this. A little note, before blaming someone of misusing powers, did you try using your own powers in a legit way? Moving a rejected/declined AfC submission again and again to mainspace isn't something good.─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hatchens being hatchens. Sudshare - I nominated it myself for deletion after accepting since I was not sure of notability. This approach was suggested by Tim. I didn't even vote there. Rattan has been discussed so much. Nothing to add except that it was notable indeed. I see GA99 (now blocked) recreated Rattan for the reasons only known to them. My guess would be that they recognized it was notable and might help with a good AFC record. Nonetheless, I don't control how others behave. From the logic I read above, any two editors voting same are sock of each other (My guess is that I would have participated in around a 1000 AFDs). I am not sock to any one. Clearly, people have problem with my AFC accepts (all of them have been scrutinized by Hatchens twice and they nominated some that they found problematic for deletion. Some were kept, some were not; we all did learn something new though). But since, there are these suspicions and doubts on my quality of work, I have asked to give up my AFC rights [42]. If admins feel there is substance in the arguments, against me, they can take actions they seem fit. I don't have a good feeling about hatchens though. I had analyzed them some time back but left it there for my own mental peace. But, I think I should raise these problematic NPP or accepts since they keep finding problems in my work. Editors can interpret this as they like

1. Koenig Institute - NPP done by Hatchens. Zero notability as a company. Promo page.
2. Prasun Chatterjee - AFC + NPP (Concerning)? No notability. An AIIMS doctor who did some charity. Their book has no reception. Created by a blocked user.
3. Nikhil Kamath - AFC + NPP(?). Didn't have his own notability. Was moved to Praxi as a redirect to Zerodha with a remark 'not remotely close to being independently notable'. I had asked about this one before but they didn't respond then as well.
4. Jawad Sharif - AFC + NPP. Created by utmost clear SPA. Hatchens didn't event put a COI tag there.
5. I. M. Kadri - AFC. Created by clear SPA. The draft was accepted in state that is far from WP:NPOV.
6. Everstone Group - AFC. Created by clear SPA. Didn't put any COI/UPE tag. Accepted in pathetic promo condition.

I think I can find more but this is sufficient to show that as an AFC/NPP editor, there are problems. We should see their allegations against me accepting COI/UPE/Substandard pages in light of their own accepts/work.

About AFD voting, I am sure if I find some time, I can find the patterns in their voting that they are making allegations of.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, Thank you for the highlights and the Afd tags. So, let there be a natural process ahead. Now whatever reply I'll put it would not make any difference at your end because of you being in a "revenge mode" and showing your "true color" out of "sheer desperation". But, since its an ANI and I'm duty bound to give an appropriate reply;

• Let's start with Koenig Institute. Yes, the institute is notable because it got extensively covered in various media outlet such as Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Fortune etc for its involvement in the training of one of the most significant whistleblowers in the history of mankind. As long as the page is outwardly not a promo page and documents a very important moment of the history then I've no issue with accepting it with my NPP rights.
• Prasun Chatterjee; satisfies WP:THREE - The New Indian Express, Business Standard, The Hindu (the last one is an interview, but since its with WP:THEHINDU/WP:RSP).
• Nikhil Kamath, accepted it but redirected by Praxidicae to Zerodha. They are the authority and I accept their assessment. If I had been paid editor like Nomadic and having an army of UPEs, then I would had had tried to influence the outcome with second attempt, third attempt or nth attempt.
• Jawad Sharif; satisfies WP:THREE - The Wire, The Dawn, The News, The Nation (the last one is an interview).
• I. M. Kadri, accepted it as per the list of his architectural work and many of them have their Wikipedia pages. Besides that, kindly refer to the talk page Talk:I. M. Kadri, where I clearly put a statement - "I've accepted the draft. But, the review part, I will let it pass to more experienced editor or an editor who has the required subject matter expertise."
• Everstone Group, on September 30, 2020, I was the one who had put up for an AfD tag on Everstone and reasons are quite well-defined. And, on March 14, 2021... it was me only who accepted this article through AfC and I gave a proper reason for acceptance at the Talk:Everstone_Group - "Six months ago, I myself nominated this company's article for an AfD discussion. At that time, the entity's page was purely promotional (WP:PROMO), was lacking credible citations as per the WP:RSP list and top of that series of WP:SOCKS were involved. Today, I accepted this draft on the basis of its content which satisfies WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RSP, WP:THREE... in true sense. If anyone agree otherwise, I'm open for it."

Now comes the very important but a genuine question, and please do correct me... if an editor has an AfC reviewing rights with NPP rights? Can they use it in tandem? or is there any reservation on it?

By the way, If there had been a disturbing pattern, then you would had brought it to ANI way before... to save your skin. But its ok, just take your time. Unlike you, I know my editing history quite well and I believe it will itself speak for myself.

Others should duly note, Nomadicghumakkad, out of "sheer desperation" is now indulging in revenge based Afd tagging - Koenig Institute AfD, and Prasun Chatterjee AfD. I have no idea how we should account such behavior in LIVE ANI discussion. However, if its valid, then I'm OK with it. - Hatchens (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am only doing what you have always done with me when I have tried to question you, go and AFD my accepts. I haven't tagged my associates (like you tagged Aafi) because I don't have any.

1. If you thinkKoenig Institute meets, WP:CORPDEPTH, I don't even know what to say anymore. I'd like other experienced editors and admins to note that Hatchens feel this page meets CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited. CORPDEPTH requires independent analysis, discussion and commentary on the subject. This could have been a mention on the whistleblower page and not more than that.

1. Prasun Chatterjee - Did you see that BS is a PTI release? It contains a not below: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) I'd like other experienced editors and admins to note that Hatchens tried to provide a PTI feed as a source to establish notability. Do they understand what 'independent sources' mean?

1. Nikhil Kamath - so if you accept Praxi's decision to redirect, you are fine. But if I accept their decision to let BoAT remain in draft, I am still a paid editor? You do agree you made a mistake then? Your mistakes are forgiven and mine are not? I still don't buy that if you do unerstand notability guidelines, you accepted AND NPP it.

1. Jawad, I. M. Kadri - my question is not about notability. You clearly saw this is an SPA. Undeclared COI and possible UPE. I'd like experienced editors and admin to note that they still accepted them without (a) asking the editors to declare COI (b) putting a COI tag. In short, they accepted a SPA/COI article without flagging it.

1. Everstone - I did pretty much same with Sudshare. So what I did is problematic but what you did is not?

1. Looking at creator of Koenig Institute and Hatchens, They both have edited Fore School of Management at time gap of 23 minutes [43]. Creater of Koening RPSkokie is a major contributor to this page, adding a lot of non-NPOV content. Hatchens had moved it to drafts but were suddenly later okay with it. I see the page was closed as non-consensus in a recent AFD where Hatchens put a tag so they were aware this was happening. If they were okay with it, why they didn't put a keep there? I will further check the records of SPSkokie and the editor who finally accepted it.

AFC reviewers can NPP their own drafts. There is no rule against it but it is discouraged because the whole point of NPP is to provide an additional layer of review. The question is, you did AFC + NPP at Prasun Chatterjee (created by now blocked editor) AND Nikhil Kamath. I see this as an attempt to have them not appear in NPP feed so that it can slide by. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, kindly note, you and I both are in ANI not at any regular AfD discussion. Let the competent authorities judge our editing history and behavior. If they find anything on me which compromises the very tenet of Wikipedia, then I'm ready accept their decision without a fuzz. And, please kindly keep your sassy fights with you only. - Hatchens (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am only replicating your own past behaviors my friend. If you think I am a paid editor because you feel my accepts are sub-standard or the creators had COI/UPE, yours are clearly very same. Yours is next level - doing AFC AND NPP to COI pages to make them disappear from the feed altogether. Or, we agree that editors can have different perspectives of notability and they can be both right and wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Paid news in India

• The difficulty with a lot of these sources is well explained in our article on Paid news in India. For anyone who hasn't read that recently, the executive summary is: (1) Most Indian news sources provide positive coverage for pay; and (2) They don't disclose when they've done it. This practice is rotten to the core, and it means that we as Wikipedians can't accept most news sources based in India as reliable. There are of course honourable exceptions, notably The Hindu and The Indian Express.
  This is deeply unfair on India because it means that we describe the US using American sources, and the United Kingdom using British sources, but we describe India using sources from Western democracies. We call this unfairness "systemic bias". But we can't make it any better without breaking our own rules on sourcing.
  This culture of paying for positive coverage also goes some way to explaining how many complaints about UPE we get about India-related topics.—S Marshall T/C 14:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Whoa! I was not aware of this. Shocking. @Fowler&fowler: background request. El_C 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Can the interlocutors here, or should I say, "the interlockers," i.e. those whose horns of mind and tongue are interlocking, please describe in a short paragraph what is the nub of the issue? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there may be multiple WP:UPEs who have infiltrated AFC review and NPP and battle it out for their employers against other UPEs through article creation and article deletion, and the possibility of pay-for-coverage in Indian media further complicates the issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Ok, summarizing the whole thing... I've been accused for "Misuse of Powers" at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle by Rickinmorty. But, the discussion had taken a turn towards blaming and counter blaming exercise between Nomadicghumakkad and me - mutually suspecting each other to be UPE/COI editors. So, I voluntarily submit myself for a background check. - Hatchens (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Going to rephrase this a bit. Started with Rick blaming Hatchens for improper draftifying. It then shifted where Folks pointed out that my accept for BoAT was not right. I showed them how after it was draftified, I discussed it with Highking and since they didn't give a positive response, I left it in the drafts. After that, they made further allegations on my editing. I demonstrated that the allegations they make, they do have same (and worse) behaviours. So, yeah, I guess that's where we are. 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadicghumakkad (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I do have a question for both @Hatchens: and @Nomadicghumakkad: A very large number of your edits are in start class articles, or stubs. Do you create those pages or simply fatten them up a little? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Generally I create and work on WP:NRHP articles which are sometime borderline start or stub class articles. But, recently I tried my hand in creating two Ukraine-focused articles. When it comes other stubs and start pages, its either marginal expansion to average expansion (if its possible) or most of the time, its either AfC review or NPP review work where newly launched pages are generally of these categories (start or stub) only. - Hatchens (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fowler's expertise in India-related matters is widely respected but it's not obvious to me why ElC pinged them here. I think that what's needed is close scrutiny of editor intersections in India-related articles at AfC, in the light of jobs advertised on Freelancer and, likely, other boards like Freelancer.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think El C was looking for verification that paying for media coverage was commonplace in India. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That's right, I wanted confirmation, first and foremost (+ a bit of historical background on this new-to-me phenomenon). Was just trying to express that politely to you, S Marshall, is all. El_C 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, there's something suspicious about Hatchens that should not be mentioned here for OPSEC reasons. It is a huge red flag, but I don't have enough evidence of spamming or accepting spam to block. MER-C 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• I generally don't work on contemporary India, actually contemporary anything, so I tend not to use newspapers for sourcing, Indian, British, or American. My learned (i.e. learnt in IE) knowledge of both Urdu and Hindi, such as it is, means that I have to work doubly hard to understand the content, sometimes to play TV reports again and again, or read newspaper reports again and again, like a child. But once I understand, I do have a pretty good idea of the nuances.

It's true that many media outlets in India have caved in to the pressure brought to bear by the government in the last half a dozen years. But quite a few have not. Not just, The Hindu and a lesser extent the Indian Express, but also the Calcutta Telegraph and Statesman, and maybe the Deccan Chronicle, the Urdu The Siasat Daily. On TV, many people stand out, such as the Magsaysay Award-winner Ravish Kumar at NDTV's Hindi, the very articulate Urdu-Hindi presenter Arfa Khanum Sherwani on The Wire TV, NDTV's English Nidhi Razdan, or The Wires English Karan Thapar. They seem to be people of great integrity who I doubt could be bribed to spin a story your way. The last-named, though, a stiffish holdover from the Raj, should be bribed with some of that which Bill Clinton did not inhale, for his own sake that is, not a story's.

There are quite a few magazines or online newspapers, such as Caravan, The Wire, Outlook, and Scroll, which too seem impervious to the charms of money. And there is the famous Pakistani newspaper Dawn which routinely carries stories on India written by Indians. The government probably doesn't care about them too much as its main support base is not English-literate, at least not at a level of comfort to make it their first choice for news. I did understand what El_C was looking for. I was asking the disputants the questions I was to get a feel for the kinds of news stories we are talking about, whether they were even in the pale of what these reporters or programs report on and I read. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

My more philosophical question to these editors is: Why? Why would you create stub after stub and expect others to pick up after you? There are thousands of topics, that traditional encyclopedias care about, that lie withering on India-related WP. Off the top of my head I can think of Alfred High School (Rajkot), Pye-dog, Bhola Paswan Shastri, Chettiar, or Goshan, that await fattening up ... Why then such additions? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Because they're not paid to give a shit about those articles. Now, bear in mind, most of this comes from my experience working #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, where about 50-60% of users I've (attempted to) help have been from the Subcontinent, but these users generally have a monomania for their particular article, are resistant to any explanations as to why their sources are useless, (usually) have not disclosed, and very quick to try to justify their garbage article by pointing to poor articles, many of which predate 2011 and have lain mouldering in a corner. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hatchens and Nomadicghumakkad: I wasn't implying you are paid editors. At least I have no evidence one way or another. I did want to get a feel though for why you might prefer articles about these companies, to those such as the ones I mention above, or below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Fowler, I created a lot of short articles at the starting of my journey. It's a good question that you ask - why create stubs and expect someone to pick them up. I had this dilemma myself - to contribute to existing articles or create new. I saw it from a reader point of view. So many readers look at Wikipedia for reliable information. Adding articles, for me, meant adding more topics for people to read, even if they were small. The length of the article also depends on the available sources. I am on the conservative side of WP:VER where I prefer to source everything from a good quality source (I also reject a lot of articles if they don't meet WP:VER and have been criticized for it). So sometimes, if you don't have a lot of sources, you might not have a big article. This was specifially true for some topics I picked from Women in Red project. Also, I have almost never classified any accepted article in a class better than start. I think again, I am conservative when i think of what a Class A article quality should look like. I don't prefer articles about these companies. I review them as part of my work as an AFC reviewer. They get flagged more often because WP:NCORP is a complicated policy and there can be polarizing interpretation of it. I have said this many times before, we pick and choose the part of policies that appeal to us. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think we are being a little unfair to India, and other non-Western countries, in that we are very quick to discard many media outlets on the basis of a few bad apples, but we tend to regard the bad apples in the West as simply aberrations in otherwise reliable media. My view is that the best way to approach this is to follow WP:NOT#NEWS and to treat news reports, wherever they originate from, as the primary sources that any historian would tell you that they are. From previous discussions it seems that I am almost alone in that regard and that Wikipedia will continue to treat news reports as secondary sources, although nobody else does so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Tom Devine

I have been blocked to make further changes to my bio.
This is totally unacceptable:
- have had to make corrections to errors made by others.
- because of my public profile have attracted attention from hostile individuals who have removed information which has been validated in sources and recorded in bio to substantiate all information.
- this is the second time I have been subjected to this behaviour.
- I am now 76 years and not well.My recent changes to the bio have been to ensure my family have an accurate record of my career and achievements after my death.
- how can I be assured that this disgraceful unwarranted online aggression will cease with immediate effect?

Professor Emeritus Sir Tom Devine University of Edinburgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1394:9C00:A887:AD76:C6A:5590 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you want to keep records for your family, I suggest you find a more appropriate place to do so. Meanwhile, it is down to Wikipedia to decide what it thinks is appropriate in a biography: an article about the subject, rather than one created on their behalf. Having looked at the article in question earlier, I'm inclined to agree with suggestions that it was over-filled with information about awards etc, and lacking in substantive content which gave much in the way of an indication of what the awards were for. A biography of a distinguished historian ought surely to concentrate on their work, and on its critical reception, if it is to serve as any sort of historical record. Or even just as an explanation for the casual reader as to who the subject is, and why they keep getting awards...AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

See also the thread on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. [44] It appears that there is work being done to rectify some of the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Andy--thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor who tagged the article for a promotional tone, and raised it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and I had tried to tone down some of the language in it. I would like to assure Professor Devine that I have no hostility or animus against him, simply a desire to see the article conform to Wikipedia's standards. Indeed, one of the things I want to see in it is more in-depth information about his work over the years - the work that has led to him receiving so many awards. We want to know about it and its importance! Wikipedia is not the place however for an encomium, however well-deserved, and we do have strict rules about editing articles about yourself. I do appreciate how frustrating it can be for an editor unversed in our ways, and I hope the Professor makes use of Talk:Tom Devine to make constructive suggestions for the article. He may find it helpful to create an account, as that would, I think, make constructive communication between himself and other editors easier. DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Tom Devine. I am the admin who responded to the alert and who issued the block. Please note that this block is only partial. It does not prevent you from editing the article talk page, only the article itself. A discussion page which you are welcome to engage, with suggestions, corrections or anything else (you can also use the edit request procedure). Incidentally, I, too, am an historian, and though not familiar with your body work, it looks both impressive and interesting. Best wishes, El_C 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • From an occasional content writer: Appropriate block for the mess that I'm only the latest in a long string of editors, from JzG and Materialscientist through David Tornheim and Richard Nevell and Victor Schmidt and Diannaa (all reverting this perennial barrage of the same stuff over and over for three years now — e.g. Special:Diff/1008368927) to the present, to have done cleanup on.

    From an administrator: The 455 deleted revisions were from a foundational copyright violation from 2005, text just taken wholesale from a potted biography for a conference. This content was being written in the same way, including the very same misleading phrasing implying a Royal Medal instead of a Royal Society of Edinburgh Medal. (Special:Diff/895295467 is one of several times that this has been done by IP addresses.) There was also a Prize that became a Medal (no such Medal in 2013), that in fact went to someone else. Very appropriate block.

    Unfortunately, at this point I have to draw attention to Sweetpear2 (talk · contribs) ("I am an academic."), Sweet Pear (talk · contribs), and other IP addresses including 2A00:23C4:13B7:3C00::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:23C4:138D:8E00::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:23C4:1389:200::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and a bunch more. It might be that autoconfirmed protection is instead the answer.

    Uncle G (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Well, shit. Okay, semi makes sense, then. To quote you-know-who: I will do it. El_C 12:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I find it depressing when we get a "Do you know who I am!?" in a signature that holds a complaint. I woudl like to remind Tom Devine that even our founder has the same status in terms of his person in rank and status here, save for certain administration tasks, as does the least of our editors. I am sorry for your health conditions, Tom Devine. Wikipedia has no interest in what continues to be represented after your death nor in what you wish to say about yourself.

Wikipedia does care about what is recorded about you in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, and also has some interest in peer reviewed papers authored by you as references. It also cares about statements that disparage. "how can I be assured that this disgraceful unwarranted online aggression will cease with immediate effect?" is one of these. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that Prof Devine is a public figure of some significance in Scotland, and we have no confirmation that the IP editor actually is him: this could be an LTA joe job, or an attempt to publicly discredit him (think of the newspaper headlines - Tom Devine blocked from editing his own Wikipedia article). Prof Devine - if that is you, you can create an account and disclose your identity by following the guidance at WP:REALNAME - essentially, you would need to send an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org from your University of Edinburgh e-mail account, making the connection between you and the account. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Good advise. That's why I protected as WP:BLP, above all else, because we don't have actual confirmation. A matter which Uncle G's account of various long term problems further exacerbate. El_C 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Special:Diff/882335501 is a VRT confirmed edit request. Special:Diff/879550033/880776087 is one of these London-geolocating IP6 addresses making the referred to edits on the 29th. I really really want this to be an impersonation. But it was already good enough to fool info-en if so. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh no. @Bluerasberry: courtesy ping. El_C 14:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Hello, I was the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team agent who responded by private email in the ticket at Talk:Tom Devine. This was in 2019, but as I review the ticket, I do not think anything about the VRT response should be a factor in deciding next steps. VRT was just the process by means of which a user got a message posted to the talk page. Wikipedia editors and reviewers can respond as if the user had posted the talk page message themselves. Unless someone has further questions I think my part in this as messenger is resolved. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
        • You put "from article subject" in your section heading. That's the relevant part. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Admin (or experienced editor) required to close new inactivity requirements RfC

A week ago, it was suggested that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements could be closed, with no serious objections. Could somebody who hasn't taken part in the debate do so? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Closed, as relatively straight forward.Slywriter (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note, this RFC has passed, the new requirements will be enforced starting in January 2023. This will be included in WP:ADMINNEWS. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)