Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InsaneHacker (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 8 November 2022 (→‎A Demonstration of the Untrustworthiness of Information on Wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 0 0 21 21
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 0 0 0
    RfD 0 0 0 20 20
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (51 out of 7971 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Empire of Japan 2024-06-29 23:23 2024-07-29 23:23 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik
    File talk:Yes check.svg 2024-06-29 20:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan
    Draft:Jaan Say Pyara Juni 2024-06-29 19:03 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector
    Template:Onesource 2024-06-29 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2601 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Saraswat Brahmin 2024-06-29 14:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Kalki 2898 AD 2024-06-29 14:41 2024-10-11 05:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing ToBeFree
    Talk:Maheshwari Flag 2024-06-29 08:13 2024-07-02 08:13 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Cristiano Ronaldo Jr 2024-06-29 05:41 indefinite edit,move Per AFD discussion Liz
    S-500 missile system 2024-06-29 00:05 indefinite edit extending protection indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement per CTOPS) Swatjester
    Karhade Brahmin 2024-06-28 23:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Generation Beta 2024-06-28 19:06 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; regular attempts to restore article from redirect Daniel Case
    Chavda dynasty 2024-06-28 16:41 indefinite edit,move Sock puppetry resumed after previous protection expired Abecedare
    Chavda (Rajput clan) 2024-06-28 16:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; battling sock armies; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Draft:Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    António Costa 2024-06-28 14:51 2025-06-28 14:51 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    Moruf Oseni 2024-06-28 13:26 indefinite edit,move for AfD improvement by established editors Star Mississippi
    Battle of Tel Hai 2024-06-28 12:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
    Amana (organization) 2024-06-28 12:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
    Bağanıs Ayrım 2024-06-28 12:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
    Stuart Brotman 2024-06-27 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart N. Brotman. Should go through AfC Star Mississippi
    Puri (surname) 2024-06-27 20:24 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing CambridgeBayWeather
    Anfal campaign 2024-06-27 20:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
    Russo-Circassian War 2024-06-27 19:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
    Ideology of Palestinian Islamic Jihad 2024-06-27 19:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
    Template:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler 2024-06-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Bania (caste) 2024-06-27 17:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Vikidia 2024-06-27 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
    Filippo Berto 2024-06-27 09:06 2024-12-24 08:42 edit,move upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C
    Bay of Pigs 2024-06-27 08:39 indefinite move Move warring Lectonar
    Rajputs in Gujarat 2024-06-27 05:12 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare
    Agri (caste) 2024-06-27 05:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Other Backward Class 2024-06-27 05:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Monashee Spirits 2024-06-27 04:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Robertsky
    Thakor 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Thakur (title) 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Chhokar 2024-06-27 00:58 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; potentially several sockfarms including Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Chokar Kalan 2024-06-27 00:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Mehr people 2024-06-27 00:51 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Domaal Rajputs 2024-06-27 00:31 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; multiple sockfarms Abecedare
    Laur (clan) 2024-06-27 00:07 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Makwana Kolis 2024-06-26 23:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Chauhan (Clan) 2024-06-26 22:33 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Chauhan Kolis 2024-06-26 22:32 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Abecedare
    Hezbollah armed strength 2024-06-26 19:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA; in addition to existing community sanctions Daniel Case
    Module:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler/RedirectType 2024-06-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Module:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler 2024-06-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Proposed states and union territories of India 2024-06-26 13:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIND; upgrade to WP:ECP, maybe not indefinitely, but for a considerable time El C
    Khanpur, Gujarat 2024-06-26 05:04 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Punjabi Muslims 2024-06-26 03:12 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Punjabis 2024-06-26 02:25 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:GS/CASTE and recent disruption Daniel Case

    Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia

    I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

    • "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
    • "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
    • "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
    • "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
    • "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[6]
    • "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
    • "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
    • "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
    • "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

    So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The discord server

    When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk68 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk68 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk68 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk68 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk68 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk68 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk68 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk68 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~StyyxTalk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk68 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk68 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. signed, Rosguill talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk68 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~StyyxTalk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    • Proposal: 500edits/30days restriction over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles.

    As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Wikipedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden call me maybe? 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal my topic ban from BLPs

    I was topic banned from BLPs. I would like to be un-topic-banned. I completely admit that some of my edits on/about 25 September 2021‎ to Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Douglas Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry were unbalanced, cut-and-paste edits; bad encyclopedia-writing up and down. They were made in the heat of the moment and I should not have made them. They will not be repeated should I be unbanned. In the meantime I've:

    1. made a mistake
    2. made a couple of thousand edits (link slow to open due to age of my account and the number of edits)
    3. recieved a (procedural) NPP barnstar (another one, maybe two, likely see Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Backlog_drives/October_2022)
    4. seen some drama on meta (since en.wiki is the only WMF wiki I'm really active on, I'm assuming this was related to something on en.wiki)
    5. had an en.wiki BLP I largely wrote nominated for Translation of the Week on meta
    6. had a pretty good record of PRODs
    7. since it was mentioned at the original ANI thread, I've also used an alt.
    8. been contacted off-wiki about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_R._Fieve by someone who appeared to think this was relavent. I don't think it's relavent, but I'm including here for completeness.

    Please be aware that there a technical reasons why old twitter content cannot be deleted (only the first 3,200 tweets of each account are accessible via API); all/almost all of my remaining tweets fall into this category.

    In addition to my topic ban being lifted, I request that someone fix the copyright issues with Listener letter on science controversy. The initial version of this contains text lifted from one of the above-mentioned BLPs without declaring the source of the copyrighted text. Due to the close link to the previous issues I should probably not touch that right out of the gate. TBH, I'm not sure how that gets fixed either. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stuartyeates: I posted an edit summary to note the copying within Wikipedia, per the instructions at §Repairing insufficient attribution. I think that what you meant is that this copying happened without such a note—more of a licensing than a copyright issue—but if there are also issues with insufficient attribution to copyrighted source, I think you could (cautiously) be more specific without breaking the spirit of the TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Firefangledfeathers. I think your edit covers my concerns. I'm unaware of any further issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm leary to extend grace in this case; your allocution above seems to focus on the more technical violations involving copy-paste issues; but completely ignore the meat of nearly every person who supported your ban which was that these were essentially attack pages. It's not just "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing"; your whole request seems to be of the "mistakes were made" type. You edited Wikipedia articles specifically to disparage and attack real living people. You wrote things in Wikipedia to maliciously damage the reputation of several people. That's a far worse behavior than being "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing". --Jayron32 15:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in general agreement with Jayron32 on this matter. In order to support removing the topic ban, I would expect a much more frank addressing of the indisputable fact that Stuartyeates created a bunch of non-neutral, poorly written BLPs for the purpose of besmirching living people who took the other side in an academic controversy than Stuartyeates's personal opinion. And then he gloated and bragged about his BLP violations off-Wikipedia, bringing this encyclopedia into disrepute. As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Jayron and Cullen have already said everything I would have said about this appeal - no need for me to repeat. Begoon 11:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding, as perhaps a still outstanding issue: At the previous discussion I remarked: "Back on topic, and I think this was mentioned above, the User:Stuartyeates user page says: "Disclaimer: I own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." Obviously those accounts are subject to the same topic ban, since it is the person, rather than a specific account, to whom the ban applies. I don't immediately see where/if Stuart names the 'multiple' accounts, though...". Stuart confirms the use of "an alt" above. If the topic ban is maintained then unless any other "alt"(s) is/are linked then I'm not sure how these "multiple Wikipedia accounts" can be monitored for compliance. Unless, of course, "an alt" means, or is supposed to be taken to mean that it is the only one... Begoon 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have this account. I have User:Not your siblings' deletionist. I have one other recently-active account, I have sent an email to AC about, as per WP:ALTACCN. I have a bunch of inactive accounts like, User:StuartYeates (last edit 2011), User:Stuartyeates (code test) (last edit 2014), User:Stuartyeates_randombot (last edit 2014), and probably others I've forgotten the names of. I have no other recently-active accounts. I am 100% aware that my TBAN applies to all of these and believe my only breach has been the one listed above which was dealt with proactively. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced. The BLP violations and off-wiki behaviour that led to the ban were egregious, which the appeal does not really address. Stuartyeates has not sufficiently explained what kind of BLP material they would edit after the ban is lifted or how they would avoid repeating their mistakes. Politrukki (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (non-admin comment) At the time, I argued for leniency, not because I thought Stuartyeates' edits were justified, but because the bad behavior was highly focused on a singular event, and a blanket ban from all BLPs seemed both disproportionate and punitive. I am not sure how to phrase a narrower interdict (a ban from editing BLPs on scholars and academics? from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed?, as a couple people suggested at ANI?), but I continue to think that a response along those lines would be more proportionate to the offense. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many/most of my edits post-TBAN have been assigning new/orphan articles to wikiprojects, which are talk namespace edits. Narrowing the interdict to only apply to article space would allow me to do this for BLPs and BLP-like articles which I've had to avoid. Also a much more black-and-white test than 'controversy'. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would "narrowing the topic ban" be seriously considered while the crux of the matter remains unaddressed?
    Above, Cullen said: As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban.
    Do you disagree with that assessment?
    I don't. Begoon 12:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I do. That is, I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Terracon

    SmokeyJoe and I both requested undeletion of American engineering company Terracon at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 1 and WP:REFUND. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    REFUND is not the correct venue to undelete articles deleted via discussion. You have the DRV ongoing. No need for AN. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a temp undelete - see my comment at the DRV. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    MJL promoted to full clerk

    The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that MJL (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding their successful traineeship.

    The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § MJL promoted to full clerk

    Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

    The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has now closed and the final decision has been posted. The following remedies and motions are part of the final decision:

    • For breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is warned.
    • For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the CheckUser permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
    • For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
    • For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is admonished.
    • The Arbitration Committee wishes to express that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Actions by parties to a proceeding does not apply to TheresNoTime given that a majority of active arbitrators had opposed desysopping them at the time they relinquished their adminship.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

    Sockpuppets and watch list

    Second time I come across a sockpuppet editing a slew of articles that they've edited before... of course this is not out of the norm.....but in this case they're simply reverting edits. My question is do administrators have the ability to see a watchlist. As in can admins tell/see if a watchlist has been copied pasted from one watchlist to a new users watchlist? And if so is this method used in an investigation...and if not would this not be a good idea? Moxy- 00:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAIK, no one is able to look at another user's watchlist. I don't even like looking at my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. I assume sysadmins could do some kind of DB dump, but that's well beyond our capabilities as volunteers. Also, there's no reason to assume they're using a watchlist in the new account the first place - maybe they're using the blocked account's watchlist, or maybe they just keep a bunch of tabs open...who knows. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats mostly true, with the exception that a user who has your watchlist token (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and Wikipedia:Syndication#Watchlist feed with token) can view a RSS feed of your watchlist (although that still doesn't let you see which articles are on it, and sharing that requires active effort) -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have access to both accounts, you can use the "Edit Raw Watchlist" function to copy and paste a watchlist from one account to the other. But it's just a straight text copy and paste, and presumably leaves no record in any logs. 82.17.168.217 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From Help:Watchlist: No user, not even administrators, can tell what is in your watchlist, or who is watching any particular page. Publicly available database dumps do not include this information either. However, developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database can obtain this information. Animal lover |666| 14:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    unabele to add legitimate to a article

    I have tried to legitimate info to a article to a page for a broadcast,how ever noone has bothered to check out the provided info submitted,this is unacceptable for wikiprdia,but I am accused of edit war according to the reverts made on KTVV-LD Othelum (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So, discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page to seek consensus for your changes. If unable to resolve the dispute, seek dispute resolution. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Othelum: I don't think KTTV-LD can sustain its own article, so I listed the redirect at RfD. RAN1 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclosure

    I want to disclose that I may possibly engage in some paid off-Wikipedia consulting and training work, related to Wikipedia article creation. I will not edit Wikipedia directly for any such client but may advise potential clients about policies, guidelines and best practices. Feel free to ask me for clarification. This is the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for disclosing this. I'll reiterate what I said some time ago at Wikipedia talk:List of paid editing companies § Move firm to "Never blocked"?. I don't think off-wiki training or consulting requires any disclosure, although I think some level of disclosure is desirable, especially coming from an admin. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed with the Article creation at scale RfC

    KrakatoaKatie, TheSandDoctor, and I have begun working on the RfC close. For Question 2, I've generated a google docs spreadsheet to help me tabulate the responses. I'm looking for a volunteer who I can deputize to proofread it for me, just to verify that I've transcribed all the data correctly. You don't need to be an admin, just somebody who didn't participate in the RfC and is willing to slog through a big pile of numbers to check them for accuracy. In return, you will earn the thanks of the committee and the right to display this handsome deputy's badge on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    PS, drop me an email if you're interested. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And we have a winner. Thank you to Firefangledfeathers for stepping up. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However it comes out, thanks to all four of you for donating your time and sanity to the project. Levivich (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A closing statement has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of Rathfelder

    I have just blocked Rathfelder, an editor with over half a million contributions, indefinitely for socking. CU data shows that they have also been editing as Bigwig7, and have repeatedly used that account to back up their main account in discussions. Posting here since I know a lot of people will be surprised to see the block. Girth Summit (blether) 09:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Well, I've looked at the history and the evidence is clear. Sorry to be losing another prolific category editor, even if he was abrasive. I guess it's one way to be cured of Wikipediholism. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before anyone reports me to the Ombuds, I have not shared the CU evidence with Fayenatic london. The publicly viewable evidence was sufficiently strong for me to run a check; the CU data was obvious and undeniable. I don't want this to be the end of the road for such a prolific editor - it's an indefinite block, but I'll say for the record that it doesn't need to be permanent. If they address why they did this, and make a convincing undertaking not to do it again, I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock. Girth Summit (blether) 16:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted – I just meant that I had reviewed the editor interaction history, and found it conclusive. Apologies for implying anything else. For the record, I have no objection to Girth Summit's other statements either. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No apology needed! Just didn't want any unnecessary dramah... Girth Summit (blether) 16:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. The fact that we view them as level-headed is generally what opens the door for them to do it. The vast majority of fraud is not committed by overtly bad actors, but by people with access and the wherewithal to know how to get away with it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I didn't expect to be shocked when I visited the noticeboard today but here it is. Rathfelder is a long-time editor I've seen around Wikipedia for nearly forever who has done good work here. I also agree with Girth Summit that if Rathfelder addressed why they did this and undertook to not to do it again, it would be reasonable to support an unblock.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I think I understand how good editors could wind up doing a bad thing like using a sock for support in discussions: An editor is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, and makes many edits that do so, but they find that at times they are prevented from doing so by objections from other editors. Discussions are held, but the other editors aren't convinced by our editor's arguments, and consensus goes against them. Wikipedia has no mechanism to make certain that the "right" edit is advanced, so our editor starts to feel that having another voice in discussions would help them to win consensus and continue to improve Wikipedia. Probably they know that what they are doing is wrong, that it's against the rules, but improving Wikipedia is the bottom lime, isn't it?, so they keep on doing it. The ends, they feel, justifies the means.
      I have no idea if this is what happened with Rathfelder (and my description is not something which I ever did or would so, I assure everyone, although the thought has certainly crossed my mind), but that's surely one way it could happen. I think that many of us have come across what feels to us like wrongful blockage of good change -- I know I have -- so I have empathy for Rathfelder, and agree with those saying that a full explanation and a undertaking not to do it again should be sufficient for an unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rathfelder has certainly made an inordinate number of edits and created and populated an enormous number of categories (100s per month). However many of these categories are ill-conceived, badly named, incorrectly parented, and only partially filled, absorbing the patience and time of other editors at cfd after cfd (see Rathfelder's talk). At least 2 editors have recently called for Rathfelder to be banned from category creation (user:BrownHairedGirl at this cfd (June 22) - "it is long past time for Rathfelder to recuse themself from categorisation or be banned from it for repeatedly demonstrating a severe and disruptive lack of competence" and user:Johnbod at this cfd (Oct 22) - "At the moment I would support a ban on new categories creation").
      My own view is that an indefinite ban for sock-puppetry is draconian, but that unblocking without a general discussion would be far too lenient. I also concur with BHG and Johnbod: Rathfelder should slow down, pay attention to other editors and cfds, do things properly or not at all. (The combination of Rathfelder and Bigwig7 at this cfd is particularly egregious.) Oculi (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock

    I have unblocked Rathfelder. They have accepted a one-account restriction, and TBans from categories, and from XfD discussions. These may be appealed in no less than six months, at this noticeboard. Girth Summit (blether) 00:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unacceptable Username

    Hello, I am Costas Sacalis and I am from Greece. Please delete the User:Αρχιδάκια page. --2A02:85F:F5FF:BD72:20A4:6D1C:6F87:86EE (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What's wrong with the username? It translates roughly to "chiefs" or "chieftains". Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, αρχιδάκια means testicles in Greek. --2A02:85F:F5FF:BD72:20A4:6D1C:6F87:86EE (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a blocked account that hasn't edited in five years. If its existence offends you, don't look at it. Or at our article, testicles, for that matter. Girth Summit (blether) 19:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bollocks to that! (I couldn't resist). Dumuzid (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite why anyone should be bothered by a userid that has been blocked for five years is beyond me. Yes, we could delete the user page, but why bother? Nobody who wasn't looking for it would find it anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The formal word for testicles is όρχεις (hence the English word Orchiectomy), but Αρχιδάκια is apparently one of many slang words for the same. We could speedily delete the user & user talk pages under WP:U5, although I suspect that the anon has only taken offence against it because somebody else had beaten him to register the account first.
    As for the anon's first edit User talk:Δημιουργία λογαρασμού, which means "Create an account", that account has never edited, and was blocked sitewide in 2016 for socking on Greek Wikipedia, so we should delete that page. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing problems with #CfACP

    Ever since problems were raised three weeks ago with the #CfACP campaign, I've been keeping an eye on the edits of Special:AbuseFilter/1073. To recap, this is a meta initiative with four Wikimedians in residence, to combat climate disinformation. The quality of the edits has been very poor: copyright violations, weird wikilinks (for instance, [[global positioning system|global]]), nonsensical citations (f.i. a dermatology paper to talk about the environment), and additions of unsourced text. Participants barely engage on talk.

    @Jwale2 is coordinating. The participants from the Kenyan part of the project, for which @Cmwaura is the WiR, are responsible for most edits. @Clayoquot has been so kind to offer training, but disruption has continued. Not entirely sure what we do in similar circumstances. @Astinson (WMF) may advice from the WMF side.

    I propose we ask the organisers the following:

    1. Immediately stop recruiting volunteers
    2. Deal with problematic edits themselves. Cmwaura is a new editor herself, so I'm not sure they have the skills to do this.
      1. Monitor edits. Check each for copyright. I have not seen a single comment on participants talk pages from organisers, nor any corrections in main space. Which means volunteers have had to check around 400 edits, most of which require reverting + warning, or fixing.
      2. Inform participants of basic policies on copyright, linking and citations. Ask problematic editors to stop editing unless they have finished training.
    3. Clarify to participants that they will not get compensation for data usage if their edits are unconstructive.

    In addition, I think it would be good if an uninvolved administrator could keep an eye on the abuse filter, and place partial blocks from main space/CIR blocks where appropriate. Many participates continue to disrupt after multiple warnings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sending brand new users into a topic area with DS is unwise -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An experienced editor is needed to guide brand new editors in this area, which we don't seem to have. For a DS topic, it's a relative friendly topic area. The disruption is around generic WP:Competence is required issues, so I think the DS angle is less relevant here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is deeply unfair that the (apparently paid) organizers of this project are refusing to engage appropriately. This essentially forces unpaid regular editors into the position of having to scrutinize and correct 400+ problematic edits added by barely-competent participants in another stupid WMF outreach project. This goes double in the area of climate change, where editing usefully may take more scientific understanding than many volunteers have (myself very much included). Frankly I think we should mass-revert anything with this hashtag and block participants if they keep adding rubbish to articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking through that edit filter log, here's a summary of the last few edits from that contest, ignoring edits that were just adding images:
    Extended content
     
    Why does the WMF continue to run these "contests" and "campaigns" which do nothing but degrade the encyclopedia and waste editor time? From what I can see, the campaign participants have not responded to any of the concerns other editors have brought up on their talk pages, and nor have they tried to rectify any of those issues. For example, VickyOmondi's talk page is filled with dozens of warnings about copyright which all seem to have been ignored. I get the feeling that under normal circumstances, some of these users might have already been blocked for disruptive editing/WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. Thank you Femke for donating your time to help clean up their contributions, but I heavily question why it was made necessary for you to do that in the first place. (edit conflict) Endwise (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Today's edits were inappropriate changes of WP:ENGVAR, and the insertion of citations at random locations; I reverted all. Still no response from the organisers. @Jwale2 was active yesterday.
    Is this type of disruption sufficiently straightforward that I can impose blocks myself, given how involved I am in this topic area? (I prefer somebody else deal with it, not only because I've yet to figure out how blocking works).
    If we do not get a credible route for improvement from the organisers in the next few days, and disruption continues, would it be an idea to disallow these edits with an edit filter? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given multiple warnings, I'd be inclined to it now. Distinct, I would also (now) contact the WMF grant-giving setup stating the issues being had and that we advise against the provision of any grant to any of the four, until sufficient guarantees of engagement have been carried out. Those receiving grants have a vastly higher obligation to make damn sure those editors they're supposed to be supporting are, and that communications are adequately handled. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly, indef anyone who isn't responding to warnings (especially copyright), until we can get them to communicate. Communication is not optional and we have had way too many of these ridiculous contests creating major issues. Asking nicely hasn't worked, so we need to take more drastic action. It's immensely unfair to those who work in that area to have to deal with this on top of the normal level of bad edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New essay about noticeboards

    Editors and admins here may perhaps be interested in WP:Don't knit beside the guillotine. It addresses some aspects of the wiki-culture at noticeboards, and grew out of a now-archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Making ANI less toxic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a fantastic essay, definitely needed more than ever in this day and age. I will thoroughly ponder its lessons, and will do my best to take them to heart. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal for lifting topic ban

    Appealing user
    Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction being appealed

    An indefinite topic ban from the subject of politics in the WP:ARBIPA topic area, broadly construed (that includes related individuals, political history, etc.)

    (Diff)
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notified
    Special:Diff/1120321456

    Statement

    I have been topic banned from editing topics related to Politics on Wikipedia on 25 October 2022 .

    I was page blocked for edit warring, on an article about ongoing political event. After the block expired, a fellow significant contributor of that page posted on my talk page asking me to help maintain the page. I wanted to respond positively to the request by the fellow contributor but I was worried that another revert I make on that page could lead me to a month long block for edit warring. Due to significant concern, I asked this question to the admin, who had given me the page block on the page but instead of replying, the admin topic banned me indefinitely from politics. The admin listed more than 6 month old ANI cases against me as reason, but all of those cases they listed were non actionable and were filed as a way out of content disputes by users having ongoing content disagreements with me.

    I want to stress that there was no disruption by me since my page block and this topic ban was prompted by my question to the admin. I request the Admins to review and consider if the topic ban can be lifted. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to @Femke:, A new 'edit warring" did not precipitate this Topic ban, my question did. I have said it several times in my user talk comments, and I repeat here again, that I do not intend to edit war and would exercise extreme caution in my editing to abide with Edit warring rules. Due to abundance of caution of inadvertently violating any EW rule, I decided to get my concerns clarified from the admin before editing the page, little did I know that my asking a question, would precipitate a 'topic ban' on the only topic I am interested in editing on Wikipedia. But here I am. For seeing evidence of my constructive and collaborative editing, you have my entire editing history to review. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement(s) by involved editor(s)

    Statement by El_C (sanctioning admin)

    Just a brief note that I'm aware of this appeal. If any person reviewing it has questions for me, I welcome these (please ping). Otherwise, I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. El_C 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion among editors about the appeal by Venkat TL

    • I don't see a strong reason to lift a narrow topic ban so quickly --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. The topic ban was warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This request does not contain any information on what you would do differently. You've got three blocks for edit warring since July and you've been cautioned for tone at AE. How will you avoid this in the future? In addition to some reflection, I'd like to see constructive editing in an other area before the topic ban is lifted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been highly disruptive over a substantial period both at DYK and in pagespace, often bludgeoning discussions and complaining of mistreatment. Disruptive edits always seem to be in the content topic from which they were banned. I see no reason to allow them more opportunities to disrupt, just because they have a current pressing interest. My suspicion is that this topic ban will never be relaxed, unless, as User:Femke suggests, the editor has demonstrated they can again be trusted with the responsibility. The Tek Fog page is illustrative; this political app page was created by this user based on The Wire coverage which now appears to have been fabricated. I have no reason to believe this user directly involved with the fabrication, but the user's judgement in the case reveals much about why they are now topic banned. BusterD (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm.. I'm not sure they could have known or suspected it was fabricated. It was reported on by Deutsche Welle and Le Monde too. That said, the behaviour in the AfD wasn't quite ideal, with comments on the (later-blocked) nominator [20]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at this time. The editor has been disruptive enough in the topic area to have been blocked several times in the last four months. El C advised the editor to wait six months before appealing, but Venkat TL waited only two weeks. Wait six months. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose for six months of constructive editing in other topic area. I thought you had retired? The pattern is clearly visible, you start an edit war, and when you are at ANEW, or blocked, you say "block is preventative, not punitive. I'm not going to make controversial edits so the block is not necessary now". You also add "retired" banner whenever you are under scrutiny or something goes the way that you don't prefer. Another thing is your personal accusations. In this edit you accused El C by saying please contact the admin User:El C who has blocked me calling me a threat to that page and made sure no one else unblocks. (emphasis by me) do you have any evidence that El C made sure no-one else unblocks you? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No way. From an editor that has managed to get himself multiple times blocked for edit warring (which they managed to get reversed every time by arguing that blocks had become moot and infructuous), topic banned from DYK, and now topic banned from a part of ARBIPA, one expects at least some remorse or even acknowledgement of their presumptuous and flagrant conduct and disregard for the policies and how they would avoid its recurrence, but I see not one scintilla of remorse or acknowledgement coming from this user. Though my interactions with them have been limited and largely confined to talk page discourses, they have typified the hallmarks of tendentious editing in almost every instance: consider, for instance, their special efforts at Raju Shrivastav to edit war (that eventually got them a 3RR infraction block) in order to skew the recently deceased BLP by labelling the subject a "hypocrite" (for an opinion they had aired irl), citing Twitterati (bots and trolls)[21], showing a flagrant contempt for BLP. The topic-ban thus is well deserved and they can benefit from the forced break should they desire. They were urged to make productive edits elsewhere for six months before writing an appeal but they choose to disregard even that advice. Introspection and attendant reforms on their end are all the more necessary because it is evident that much of their disruption and tendentious editing flows from their POV-driven and partisan editing in ARBIPA. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in WP:RGW so they would do themselves a favour by aligning themselves with the goals of the encyclopedia, eschewing tendency to game the system, wikilawyering and assuming bad faith and casting aspersions on others. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, obviously. T-banned just 13 days ago and advised to wait 6 months before appealing it; has made no edits at all (claiming "retirement") between then and now; appeal makes no mention that they understand why they were banned and how they would approach similar issues going forward. In short, pretty much a textbook example of how not to appeal a topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what to make of special:permalink/1120502514#Venkat_thrashed_and_an_appeal. Maybe Venkat TL really got a beating in IRL, or maybe it is a troll, or maybe Venkat TL is doing this to get sympathy. I am feeling bad by just imagining that it happened. The date of incident is given as Nov 4th, then the IP reverted their own edits. This appeal was made yesterday, and Venkat TL did not mention anything. The comment on talkpage was posted after this appeal was made. Should we run a CU on Venkat TL? Given their participation in controversial areas, and their heated approach/interactions with others, I believe for the sake of their privacy/security their photo should be deleted (it is on commons though). Pinging @Guerillero, BusterD, RickinBaltimore, Cullen328, and Black Kite: who have been around for a very long time. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A CU isn't able to connect an IP to a user, so unless Venkat TL himself has shown evidence of account compromise, I doubt a CU could be justified; nor would it help with either trolling or a genuine incident. I suggest contacting emergency@wmf, which I can do myself when I've a better connection in an hour. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm actually doing so as we speak. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I did the same, my connection improved. Redundancy is good in such circumstances though. Not sure what WMF can do from SanFran, but at the very least they may be able to verify the provenance of the message in ways that CUs are restricted from doing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Hasley solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2022 Arbitration Committee election.

    For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

    Self-requested review: Tamzin's blocks of Volunteer Marek

    Brief summary:

    Rationale for p-block
    • VM's edits to Aaron Maté, making the same revert after 27 hours, and then again after 31 hours, while making no other edits to the article, appeared to be deliberate gaming of the community-imposed 1RR on Syrian Civil War articles. VM doesn't seem to dispute that this was deliberate; he just feels he didn't do anything wrong in doing so.
    • Even if this was not a 1RR violation by way of WP:GAMING, it was regular old edit-warring. Repeatedly making the same edit that you know will be reverted is edit-warring. The timeframe does not matter. VM is far from the first person to be blocked for three reverts in under 60 hours. VM also doesn't seem to dispute that he was edit-warring; he just insists that it's okay because he was (he feels) right.
    • Marek's response to that block prompted Newyorkbrad to request he strike an aspersion, which VM obliged.
    • VM's subsequent comments echoed that same aspersion though and were otherwise incivil; while an administrator does not become INVOLVED because a user responds incivilly to their administrative action, I recognized that it was bad optics for me to take action, so I asked NYB to assess whether action was needed.
    • VM then removed that comment with summary Please refrain from posting here again.
    • I restored it with summary this is an inquiry relevant to your ongoing unblock request. if you would like to remove it, you are welcome to remove the full request. you do not get to curate what the reviewing admin sees.
    • VM removed it again with summary feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin
    • I siteblocked VM with rationale Community sanction enforcement: Disruptive editing and personal attacks in response to edit-warring p-block on a WP:GS/SCW article. As disruption has occurred on own talkpage, revoking TPA; you are welcome to submit an AN appeal through UTRS.

    Now, to start off: I fucked up. Removing content from your own unblock discussion is more straightforward disruption than personal attacks, and, importantly, much less personalized. And disrupting one's own unblock discussion is routinely grounds for loss of talkpage access. So I thought that the same optics issue involved in taking action over the personal attacks would not appply. Clearly, I was wrong. From my perspective, having already made the decision not to block over the aspersions, the crucial role of the comment removals was clear to me, a but-for cause of the block. But I recognize now that to anyone other than me, this came across not much different than if I'd blocked one step earlier. I also felt there was some time-sensitivity involved, as potentially an admin could come along to review the unblock, be deprived of the information that the blocking administrator felt the blocked party had engaged in personal attacks during the request, and unblock based on imperfect knowledge; in retrospect, this was unlikely, and it would have been better to bring the matter to AN or AN/I promptly.

    I apologize for falling short of the expectation that administrators not give off an appearance of impropriety, and await the community's trouts and admonishments. That leaves us, though, with the question of what to do with the block. I do think my block was justified, and did not violate INVOLVED, but I recognize that it should not have been made by me. So I am opening it up to peer review. I have no objection to any admin restoring TPA, reverting to the p-block, or unblocking outright, if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction. Update 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC): Reverted to p-block (see below); review still requested as to whether to maintain p-block or unblock outright.

    Courtesy pings: @Red-tailed hawk, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, Only in death, Zero0000, and Fyunck(click). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, and for admins, noting without comment utrs:65091. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You think just "trouts and admonishments" are what should happen?
      This was a "respect mah authoritah" block, or lèse-majesté if you prefer.
      Way outside of what the community expects from an admin.
      It leaves me, for one, with absolutely no confidence that you understand how to behave impartially and fairly.
      Yeah - you fucked up... Begoon 12:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Two things -
      1 - Tamzin is a great (in my opinion) but newish administrator and we are all humans, mistakes happen.
      2 - We'll probably see all of those crawling up here because of the editor affected by the block. Just ignore them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, where's the "personal attack" in feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin)? Is it saying you made a bad block, or is it saying they feel threatened by your subsequent behaviour? I don't see an "attack" in either thing... Begoon 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Begoon: I addressed te matter of the personal attacks in this comment on my talkpage. To answer your direct question, I was not saying there was a personal attack in that edit summary. Looking back, I wish I hadn't mentioned personal attacks in the block rationale at wall. The presence of any personal attacks was merely context for what came next; the block itself was for removing the comment (and, pace BilledMammal, I have never seen OWNTALK interpreted to mean that an editor can pick and choose which comments an unblock reviewer sees, especially those by the blocking admin). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any editors choose to use the provision in those circumstances, but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to do so. At the moment, there are four justifications that would permit you to restore the comment, and as far as I can tell none apply here and as a consequence your edits were both WP:EDITWARRING and a violation of WP:OWNTALK. This comment restoration was an understandable mistake, but still a mistake and I believe it would be best to quickly reverse the mistake, as well as the actions that were taken using that mistake as a justification. BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really do not think it wise to suggest that Tamzin violated WP:OWNTALK here. Users should not be able to remove comments they don't like from their unblock request. OWNTALK (a guideline) yields to WP:OWN (a policy) where the two contradict, and they most certainly do with this section: [User pages] are still part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by ownership behavior. [emphasis added] If users could remove any negative comments from their unblock requests, that would make editors (or in this case an uninvolved admin) trying to communicate their concerns to unblocking administrators more difficult.
    Tamzin was absolutely in the right to initially restore her comments/questions regarding the unblock (no comment regarding later actions), and it would be a mistake to think WP:OWN does not apply here. VM's interests in maintaining his talk page do not outweigh Wikipedia's regular unblock processes.
    For the record, this comment is meant to solely address the OWNTALK concerns here. I don't have any other comment about Tamzin's behavoir here or elsewhere. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone is asked to not post on another's user talk page, they should do so unless absolutely required to do otherwise. There was no need to restore said comments (or, quite frankly, even make them in the first place). No one is required to keep disparaging remarks on their talk page. Buffs (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: That would completely change the nature of how unblock requests are conducted. You are suggesting that if User A requests an unblock, but User B provides evidence against them (or any other feedback meant for administrators), User A has the authority to remove it because it's "their talk page". That'd be absurd and clear gaming the system.
    You don't actually own your talk page as explicitly stated by WP:OWN. Also, just to be clear, WP:REMOVED makes it pretty clear that there are certain things that shouldn't be removed by users if they're part of wider community processes; the list provided isn't exhaustive. The unblock request process is clearly a part of that process.
    I don't have any opinions on whether Tamzin should've commented there in the first place or not, but I know all users have a right to comment on active unblock requests as a matter of process (per Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblock requests). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just commenting to reiterate that you are absolutely right here and the relevant guideline that explicitly prohibits this sort of thing is WP:TPNO which I didn’t see anyone point out. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong. While editors generally have the right to delete comments from their talk page, yes people, it is absolutely prohibited to selectively delete a part of a significant exchange in a way that misrepresents the record of the exchange that occurred. You obviously cannot just suddenly decide to start to delete someone else’s participation from an ongoing conversation which they are party to. And you obviously can’t just appeal a block and choose to delete the blocking admin’s comments about the block or appeal (I’ve never even seen anyone attempt it!)
    Also, just to remind everyone, while “banning” users from your talk page like VM did here is hardly a foreign concept on Wikipedia, it is not a right, it is a specifically-articulated form of tendentious editing. Regardless of everything else, let’s not defend the actual policy violations here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Tzemin’s comment that I removed was not part of the appeal process. It was made *after* they said “I’m not going to say anything more”. Then they decided to come back to rub it in some more. There was absolutely nothing necessary about it. If they wanted to they could have made the comment on Newyorkbrad’s talk page. It was gratuitous and unnecessary, and provocative, to put it in mildest terms I can. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok, I don't see any of those things as "attacks", and, as Brad says below, an admin who has just blocked someone, particularly questionably, is going to need a thicker skin than that before escalating to harsher blocks unilaterally (and I'll go further - should in nearly all circumstances not do so themselves at all). I'm not sure there's really any defence for how you used your tools here, frankly - it seems to me like "how not to admin" 101. Begoon 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Editors are forbidden from removing four types of comments from their talk page; I don't believe any are relevant here, which means WP:OWNTALK applies and Volunteer Marek was permitted to remove the comments.
    In such circumstances, I believe the correct response would have been to make the comment on Newyorkbrad's talk page, rather than edit warring over it and then blocking the editor you were in an edit war with. Without considering the wider dispute, I think the correct response now is to revert the block. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed Buffs (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, in the past I've seen you try to deescalate a situation [22]. I think that would have been the proper thing to do here. In this case VM was frustrated by original admin action and got frustrated. Their actions on their talk page may not have been helpful but given the wide latitude people are given with respect to their own talk pages I don't think it crossed any lines nor did it require further actions to protect Wikipedia. Thus I don't think the further escalation was justified and the action taken could certainly be seen by others as "respect mah authoritah" even if that wasn't the intent. Springee (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Newyorkbrad:

    • Volunteer Marek e-mailed me yesterday asking me to comment one way or the other on the page-block. I asked Tamzin for her response first, which she provided, for which I thank her. I view the page-block as being of borderline necessity. As Tamzin acknowledges, VM did not violate the 1RR/24h that was in effect on the page at the time, and if I am reading the chronology correctly, there was an ongoing talkpage discussion. I would not have blocked, even p-blocked, but it's well-known that I am less of a "hawk" on "edit-warring" than many other admins. In any event, even before this escalated, I was not planning to act as the reviewing admin on the page-block, because I was specifically called to the page, and blocked (even partially blocked) users do not get to select their own reviewers; but the page-block has served its purpose and I suggest that if not reversed, it at least be commuted to "time served." The same goes for the other editors who were blocked at the same time.
    • In my view, the full block, while placed in good faith, was unwarranted and should be overturned, whether by Tamzin or by consensus here. Adverse comments by sanctioned users against sanctioning admins are part of the territory. While I'd prefer it to be otherwise, sometimes these comments become personalized, and while I would not have expressed myself as VM did, I don't think he crossed the line into blockworthiness with his comments. (He did, at the outset, strike one comment I thought particularly unnecessary.) As noted above, it can be especially escalatory for an admin who perceives herself as the target of an attack to place the block, except in cases of gross abuse or harassment, and this was not that. I do, however, agree with Tamzin that VM should not have removed comments by the blocking administrator from his talkpage while an unblock request was pending.
    • The removal of VM's talkpage access was unnecessary. I suggest that that be reversed immediately so that VM can comment on-wiki, rather than in an UTRS thread that only some administrators, and no non-admins, can read.
    • One user has suggested bringing this matter before ArbCom. That is not necessary and I hope it will not be pursued.
    • Lastly, while looking into this yesterday, I noticed that many of the unblock requests in CAT:RFU have been pending for weeks or months. We promise blocked users a reasonably prompt review, and should keep that promise, even for blocks with a much lower profile than this one. It would be useful if some admins with some extra time would give attention to those; I will try to do my part in clearing the backlog. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed TPA because the disruption was happening on the talkpage itself, so otherwise a siteblock would have seemed purely punitive. But I'm not going to argue on that if even one admin disagrees, so, TPA restored. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have opened a case request at ARBCOM here. That is about Tamzin's poor decision making and use of advanced tools in enforcing that. Not about overturning Marek's block, which this noticeboard is more than capable of doing. What it cannot do is remove tools from an Admin who slaps someone with an escalated block for being annoyed at a particularly poor block to start with. ARBCOM have made it clear over the years removal of tools is their remit and I have no wish to see Tamzin continue with their high-handed approach, and this sort of poor thinking is exactly why they were lucky to pass RFA in the first place.
    As to Marek's block I think it should be lifted ASAP for being poor in the first place, and poor in the escalation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh goodness. One hates to see this. One of the most difficult parts of being an admin is being able to show restraint in the face of comments that could be seen as pointed or escalatory. In light of the essay that Tryptofish posted, I don't want to jump to any sort of conclusions regarding what the next steps are in this scenario. But within the scope of this thread, it's safe to say this was not a good block. It seems that at the very least, some formal apologia is needed in order to avoid an ArbCom case (which I think at this point is a little too aggressive a next step for a relatively new admin).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree 100% with Newyorkbrad. Both the page block and the site block should be lifted ASAP, ideally by the blocking admin. 28bytes (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original block could be debated but it was rather mild and not much out of the ordinary. The second block looked too much like a personal response to VM's angry reaction to the first block. When people are blocked, they often react badly but taking this on the chin is in the administrators' job description. In the most severe cases a different admin should step in. VM's removal of a paragraph was improper but didn't prevent the pinged admin from reading it. I would prefer to see the second block lifted. Zerotalk 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, Tamzin has undone the site-wide block. The page block remains, and can/should be discussed here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Okay, it's clear there will be no consensus to maintain the siteblock, so I have reversed that, and have apologized to Marek for overreacting and escalating the situation. I've left the p-block intact, and will leave it to another admin to decide whether to maintain it or unblock outright.
      I do want to say a word on thickness of skin. I get a lot of criticism way worse than this, and shrug it off. Just as I shrugged this off; I took no personal affront, because I learned long ago to disregard those kinds of comments. I don't think I was acting emotionally here. The emotional response would have been to run for the hills, out of knowledge that blocking an experienced user would likely lead to stress. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing, based on facts, not feelings; I just miscalculated badly. Really badly. And I'm sorry for that, and sorry to be taking up volunteer time with this. That's the opposite of what I ever want to do here as an admin and as an editor. I hope people trust that, if this were the kind of mistake I make habitually, it would have come up about a thousand blocks ago. I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again. I thank my peers for their feedback here, and will bow out from here on out unless anyone has any questions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I do have one question. You say you "miscalculated badly". Can you expand on that? What calculation did you make, and what was its "wrong" result?
      And one more: " I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again". What was the mistake, and what will you do next time instead?
      I'm not trying to flog the horse, really, but the answers to those questions aren't really clear to me yet, sorry, from your perspective...
      I know what I think you did wrong, I'm just not clear on what you think you did... Begoon 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Begoon: No, I welcome the questions.
      1. The miscalculation was not realizing that this would come off as retaliatory. As I said in my initial post, in my mind, the removal of the comment was a bright enough line that it differentiated things from if I'd blocked purely over the aspersions. I do genuinely think I would have made the same block if I saw this on some random unblock request without previous involvement. But clearly to anyone else this just looked like me getting my feelings hurt and blocking over it. I should have realized it would look that way.
      2. The mistake is maybe better framed in terms of the lesson learned: If one is having to say (words to the effect of) "I'm not technically INVOLVED", it's probably best to proceed as if one were INVOLVED. (Or more precisely applied to this case, just because no policy outright prohibits an admin from blocking a user who has been criticizing their administrative action, that doesn't mean that it's remotely a good idea.)
      -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I think the "optics" were far worse than you seem to understand - in fact I'd much prefer you to be contrite about what you did than how it might look... The fact that your reply above is basically wikilawyering about how you might have conceivably thought it would be ok is quite telling. On the other hand, you did open this section by saying "I fucked up", which is to your credit - I guess I was hoping that meant more that you knew what you did was basically unjustifiable, and an utterly incorrect use of tools, than that you thought it might just be tricky to explain away... Begoon 15:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am concerned that you don't see this as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. You and VM had a dispute, which included edit warring by both of you, over whether it was permissible for VM to remove your comment. This is clearly a dispute in which [you] have been involved, but you persist in saying I'm not technically INVOLVED. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally dont think the original blocking admin should be the one to respond with escalatory blocks for conduct after the block, leave that to somebody else. And I like VM, but I do agree that the initial sequence was "gaming" (and I note Zero's distaste for that term, but still use it). If you are actively working towards some compromise or resolution or pursuing DR then sure partial reverts may not be gaming, but the 1RR is put in place to not just slow edit-wars but to stop them. If you are repeatedly reverting, without change, you are edit-warring, and if you are doing it just outside the x number of hours then you are gaming. That said, I am sure VM would have taken a hey, this looks like slow-motion edit-warring, can you please pursue DR instead of reverting comment in stride and done exactly that. The block was justified but not necessary, and that being the case means it should have been handled with less forceful means. nableezy - 15:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Talking some specifics, the partial block needs to stay. In this talk page section numerous editors pointed out that Mate should not be described as a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikivoice. VM has put that language back in twice now [23], [24]. There clearly is no consensus for this and the continued attempts to reinsert it is disruptive, requiring editors to "burn" their revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protecting the page, a notice of 72h 1RR time expansion and eventual warning was a more fitting way. Original blocks (all 3 editors) should be also lifted. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protecting the page would have prevented the edit warring, yes, but it would have also prevented the lead from being expanded and rewritten to more closely follow MOS:LEAD and address the SYNTH concerns on the talk page. Full protection should rarely be used, and the use of p-blocks seems more narrowly tailored than full protection towards stopping edit warring if only a limited number of users are actually edit warring. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P-blocks prevented access to the talk page. That terminated the ongoing discussion among affected editors. A straightforward warning with a request to continue the discussion and reach consensus first, would work much better in my humble opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was just a block from editing just the page Aaron Maté. Not Talk:Aaron Maté or any other place where discussion would have continued. nableezy - 20:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did affected editors know that they still can edit talk page? I think they didn’t 🤔 ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, they did know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tamzin: - do you stand by your statement that this was without a doubt, the most unbecoming conduct I've seen from an experienced user in response to a block? starship.paint (exalt) 15:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    VM's site-block has been reduced to a page-block, his talkpage access has been restored. Tamzin has apologised for her actions as an administrator. There's no need for an Arbcom case. Let's remain calm & move on. I've been around the 'pedia for about 17 years, so trust me. My advice 'here', is the best advice. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    17 years, you say? Well, that's me convinced. Thanks for your deep analysis - it's always a joy to absorb. Begoon 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the perils of p-blocking, I could sing tales of dread and wonder on these. ;) Look, Tamzin, like I said to you last time when you acted too authoritatively by way an intentionally-cryptic public warning — you are moving too fast and loose. It's one thing to study experienced admins, it's another to actually be and act as one. You are still very new. You're did half things right and half wrong here. Credibly, what you did right, the p-block, etc., was done exceptionally well. But after that, it's all down hill.
    When you venture into the GS/ACDS topic realm, you're going to run into users that perfected walking the line like a tight rope without ever crossing it in a major way. VM is an exceptionally challenging editor to deal with in that regard. I try not to repeat this too often, because what came to pass came to pass, but to my ever-lasting regret, I was instrumental in arguing before ArbCom for his EE topic ban to be lifted, which came to pass.
    Yet, here he became the victim. VM will usually respond uncivilly and unkindly even to warnings (not to mention sanctions), no matter what. That's something you ought to expect, and not just from him; there's no shortage of users who act that way. But keeping your finger off the trigger when it gets heated, when you feel that heat, that, as alluded to, is the other half where you faltered. So, you really do need to start taking it slower. Temper non-emergency actions against users whom you've sanctioned. As I know you know, it is standard practice to give sanctioned users extra-leeway. The challenge as an admin is to live up to that maxim. Because the fallout when you fail to do that, is this easily-avoidable time sink. El_C 18:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that Tamzin is "moving too fast and loose," as I described here.[25] The ban I previously received from another admin was dubious enough, but Tamzin's subsequent block was reflexively capricious, absolutely without merit, resulting in a permanent black mark on me in the block log. I see absolutely no contrition on Tamzin's part, which only deepens my concerns about Tamzin's suitability to be an admin. soibangla (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soibangla Your topic ban and resultant block were completely correct and followed policy to the letter. You were given numerous warnings that your talk page comments fell within the boundary of a topic ban and were told to stop commenting - the "black mark" arose entirely due to your own actions. You have already had this explained to you at your talk page, at the talk page of the enforcing administrator [26] and at AN [27] where every single person has pointed out that you have a flawed, incorrect understanding of how discretionary sanctions work. How many times are you going to continue beating this dead horse? How many times do you need the workings of discretionary sanctions explaining to you? Your request to have the log entry removed is completely without merit and would be an example of gross administrative tool misuse - Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Misuse RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not consider the views on this contentious matter from any editor who posts IP. soibangla (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is absolutely correct. This isn't an opportunity for you to air your grievances or relitigate your block. -- Ponyobons mots 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Discriminating against IP views is an uncivil act by definition unless backed by evidence of sockpuppetry/block evasion. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undo P-Block of VM and apply a solid trouting
      From a technical standpoint, Volunteer Marek did not violate WP:1RR as all the edits were outside the 24-hour window. You want to view that as gamesmanship? That's fine, but the justification for this block is flawed at its premise. Now, is this the start of or a continuation of edit warring? Probably, but you didn't make that case. If someone is going 58 in a 60 mph zone, you don't write them a ticket for for speeding "because it was clear what they were trying to do." Buffs (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a flawed analogy. The correct analogy is someone driving 62 in the 60 mph zone knowing nobody would usually bother to write a fine, and if somebody would, they have good lawyers. Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but why do they have such good lawyers? When I started editing here, an admin warned me: You need to read WP:3rr carefully. It’s not an allowance. Well, I guess the same applies to 1RR. VM is constantly edit warring in the EE area while formally abiding by the 3RR rule: he literally does it all the time. Why doesn't anybody intervene? And the same applies to incivility. El C says VM will usually respond uncivilly and unkindly even to warnings. Ok, but this happens not only when VM deals with admins issuing warnings and blocks, but also and especially with fellow editors and even newcomers. Since no one is paid here to be bullied, I don't understand how this could be allowed to go on for so long. I welcomed the block, although I thought it would have been better applied in response to some of his many intemperances against non-admin users. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I intervened last time and you remember what the result was. Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Even NYB stated "As Tamzin acknowledges, VM did not violate the 1RR/24h that was in effect on the page at the time, and if I am reading the chronology correctly, there was an ongoing talkpage discussion." The "law" wasn't violated. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There was ongoing talk page discussions, which VM was participating in. Which makes the 2nd revert of the “conspiracy theorist” language disruptive, as clearly VM was aware that most editors did not support it in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      3RR and 1RR are both bright-line rules. You cross them and the punishment is clear/crisp/unambiguous. To both of you, no, the analogy is driving 58 in a 60 zone, but what he really should be cited for is reckless driving because the road conditions warrant a slower speed. You want to cite VM or anyone else for 1RR or 3RR, then you better have clear evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you need to provide other evidence of an infraction. What you are describing is incivility and/or edit warring. If he's to be blocked for that, honestly, given the general sentiment, I don't particularly have a problem with it if it's backed up with evidence, but that evidence is not presented here.
      ...in short, this is NOT 1RR or 3RR and VM is following those rules to a "T". Buffs (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say the gaming description seems quite reasonable. A new account would probably be warned, maybe p-blocked. An experienced editor should know better. I'm not sure what the right way to handle the issue would have been, but I don't think the original p-block was crazy. As long as VM acknowledges that their behavior wasn't great here and they will avoid similar things in the future, I think we're good and the p-block should be removed. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors - Please learn all the facts before expressing your opinion - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey Gizzy, perhaps you should WP:AGF and assume we've all read the history and know the facts. I don't agree with Gitz, but I assume he/she has read the history and relevant criteria. 1RR and 3RR are bright lines. Anything else really falls under edit warring. If the person is edit warring, block them for that, not a violation that didn't happen. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I hadn't missed a single comment and I had followed the drama in real time as the events unfolded, a bowl of popcorn on my lap, so there might be lack of understanding on my part, but no lack of information. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Gizzy. Misread the comment. I think we're on the same page here. Buffs (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Assuming the comment from GCB was directed to me: yes, the blocking reason should have been something about a slow edit war and gaming. And yes, I think a warning might have been best as a first stop. But I do think a p-block in this case isn't crazy. Is there some other point that I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO the concerns brought up at ARBCOM should instead be raised as a separate thread here. A request for a self-review of a block does not have the scope to deal with the issues raised.North8000 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to belabor the point, but anyone reviewing please look at the page history for the context. Volunteer Marek reverted 5 times in 3 days - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all while a talk page discussion was ongoing and had been started on the first day of the edit warring. This is a pretty clear cut 1RR violation that would have probably been handled with stricter sanctions had it been reported at AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No one, and I mean absolutely no one editing that page was aware that there was a 1RR restriction on that article until Tamzin announced it. There was the additional problem of various brand new, fly by nights accounts showing up reverting and removing info left and right (obviously such accounts don’t really care much about 1RR). Volunteer Marek 07:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, a very similar situation to the one on Aaron Mate article is taking place at Mariam Susli AfD (these two persons are linked, they share the same “propaganda space” and both have canvassed users off wiki to edit their Wikipedia pages). There’s some really over the top shenanigans going on over there (and the article) with some very likely coordination and/or sock puppetry from like half a dozen accounts. It’s also Syria related so I’m assuming under 1RR, basically the same kind of POV, but drooling donkey donuts, now I’m all paranoid about engaging and trying to take care of it. Volunteer Marek 08:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And on that note let me point out that having a GS/SCW 1RR restriction on contentious articles such as these *without* a concurrent 500/30 restriction that allows for reverting non auto confirmed accounts is really really really foolish. It’s basically handing over the relevant articles to fly by night throw a2ay accounts who, unlike established editors, don’t care about 1RR because they simply move on to the next account. Why do we never think this stuff through? Just love of making up rules? The “something must be done and this is a something” mentality? Volunteer Marek 08:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one, and I mean absolutely no one editing that page was aware that there was a 1RR restriction on that article until Tamzin announced it — that's because there wasn't, until Tamzin announced it (on Nov 3, you were pinged). More importantly, in order for WP:1RR to come into effect, an admin must place the required notices (added also on Nov 3): talk page notice, page notice. El_C 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, it doesn’t seem like thats what Tamzin thinks [28]: (1RR) which I did not impose, but rather merely noted the existence of; it had rightly been in effect since the article was created. Now I’m even more confused. Is it always in place if it’s Syria related or does it have to be officially “announced” first? How come the admins don’t know this? Volunteer Marek 09:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It came into effect once Tamzin imposed it in the manner I described above. Until then, while the WP:SCW sanctions regime was pertinent to that page, it only existed in potential. El_C 09:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Volunteer Marek @El C All articles related to the Syrian civil war and ISIL are under a community imposed 1RR restriction, which does not require notice. See WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR: In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice, with the following specifications is imposed. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also the preamble of the remedies section Pages may be tagged with {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used to indicate that articles are under general sanctions. The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) IP, that's the thing with WP:GS rules, they can be especially arcane. With WP:ACDS, across the board these notices are required for enforcing 1RR, etc. Which is why there has been a growing push to subsume GS into DS, so they could be better standardized. And which is why I felt WP:GS/RUSUKR was a step backwards in that regard. But as for WP:SCW, indeed, its page states:
    The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/alert|syr}} template (emphasis added).
    So, due to these arcane features, technically, the page notices were not required. But also, technically, the {{subst:Gs/alert|syr}} was, and Tamzin placing it alongside the sanction itself was (technically) inappropriate, as it is meant to alert editors to it [full stop]. In my view, none of that really matters. I presume VM was aware that it was put into effect on Nov 3 when he was pinged. And if he somehow wasn't aware of it until being sanctioned, well, that would be a fuck up (not on VM's part, I miss pings all the time). El_C 10:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C Per the GS page, these sanctions are modelled after the Palistine-Israel Arbitration case. The only part of the ARBPIA Sanctions that requires awareness are the discretionary sanctions, [29], the extended confirmed restriction and 1RR rule do not require an editor to be aware to be enforced. This has been clarified in these 2020 clarification requests [30] [31]. Reading the general sanctions page I think the same setup was intended here, the 1RR restriction is applied "In addition" to the general sanctions, rather than as a part of it, and the requirements for user talk page notices doesn't make any sense combined with the statement that the 1RR rule "does not require notice". 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: the situation at Aaron Maté had developed into a shit fight. There was some discussion through edit comments which isn't ideal but does demonstrate editing toward consensus. IMHO somebody needed to call time-out, have editors go to a neutral corner and listen to the ref and start up a real discussion. Wikipedia:Gaming the system would state: "Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach .... I don't think a pattern of gaming conduct was reasonably established. Wikipedia:Gaming the system would state: A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. Nor is it clear that Hobomok has been made DS aware, though I would think that VM probably is. Seven days block does seem somewhat excessive in the first instance. I don't think that these blocks were reasonable or appropriate. Poyani has already been unblocked. So should Hobomok. As to the block applied to VM re civility: nemo iudex in causa sua. VM does need to watch their civility but I think that the circumstances should be considered and significant latitude given. I would agree with the observations of Newyorkbrad (and El_C) in this and that the block should be fully removed. If possible, I would suggest these blocks be erased from the record if possible. To Tamzin, others observe that they are a new admin that has generally shown good judgement. They acknowledge (at least in part) that they fucked up. They are prepared to accept a trouting from the community if that is our decision but IMO a Beluga sturgeon is more in order. Such an admonishment should be noted but I don't think that in itself (this incident) any further action is require in respect to Tamzin. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation at the Mate article has become a shit show for a very simple reason - for the past few months (and maybe even going further to 2021 when apparently there had been some COI looking editing going on) there has been a steady flow of brand new (occasionally sleeper) accounts coming to that article, trying to remove any negative information about the subject no matter how well sourced it is. This of course escalated recently when apparently Mate posted about the article on twitter, effectively encouraging his followers to go edit it along the same lines (remove any negative … etc.) A lot of these accounts have like five or ten edits to their name yet they also possess an uncanny knowledge of esoteric Wikipedia policies (like quoting WP:COATRACK in their first ever edit). They also have absolutely zero compunction about misrepresenting their edits with false edit summaries (like falsely claiming that text sourced to The Guardian is sourced to a “blog” or “LinkedIn”) or following 1RR for that matter. Because for them there’s no consequences to breaking the rules - just make a new account. Volunteer Marek 09:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, the Guardian source presented as a hyperlink "[1]", where ref 1 was to Lidekin. So, unless there was deliberate interference with the citation (I didn't see one), the revert comment was in "good faith". Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

    More eyes please

    I have been partially involved in adminning the Aaron Maté page over the past few days although Tamzin has borne most of the burden. Now with them potentially stepping back from the article + ongoing Ukraine war + upcoming US elections + change of ownership at Twitter, the article is likely to receive more outside attention in addition to the ongoing disputes. So can some experienced editors and admins add it to their watchlist, help resolve the current differences, and keep an eye for more flare ups? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting this, Abe. To be clear, this isn't an outright recusal from the article, but an acknowledgment that most heavier-duty admin situations there would probably not benefit from me being the handling admin at this point in time. If it's something like a disruptive SPA or a sock, or an incredibly blatant 1RR violation, I may still take some action. But the last thing a contentious article needs is an admin who will only invite more contentiousness if they make an even slightly controversial block/ban. I'm also around if there's any questions about the scope of the page sanction I imposed, although it should be quite straightforward: same as the regular 1RR, just change "24" to "72". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)

    Response needed at VM's

    BTW - Would an administrator please respond to VM's unblock request. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure thing. Unblocked VM and Poyani, for time served. I don't think they'll be fighting in this article again. I guess I should unblock User:Hobomok for the same reason, though they seem to have quit and I'm not impressed with the enormous amount of bad-faith editing they displayed. I don't know, though. Should I unblock without an unblock request? Does it matter? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobomok unblock? why not. My guess is, he'll un-retire, shortly after. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you remove the DS from the topic area if nobody will bother to enforce it? Get rid of the bureaucratic nonsense that is routinely unfairly enforced. I am bookmarking this thread for the next time an admin tries to tell me about 1RR. It is officially dead. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further consideration - Drmies you don’t have the authority to undo DS admin actions unless certain provisions are met. Looks like we may need an Arb case after all. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Jesus Christ. Well. Someone redo the sanction, whatever. Or, Mr Ernie, make me party to an Arb case, whatever. And make sure you slap the two now temporarily unblocked editors on the wrist for incorrectly placing unblock templates on their own talk pages. I'm going to read a book. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Unblock as you see appropriate. Let's just end this. /pos -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For what it's worth, the block on Poyani appears to be an ordinary edit warring block, not a GS enforcement block. As such, I don't see a reason that Drmies is prevented from unblocking that user in response to the unblock request. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t make the rules. In fact I’ve been outspoken that they are stupid. I’ve also been outspoken that they should be enforced uniformly and fairly if they are to be enforced at all. But again, I’m pinging you to be my savior if I revert 5 times in 3 days on a 1RR article. Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please all stop repeating the same nonsense? VM didn't "revert 5 times in 3 days on a 1RR article", they reverted 3 times on a standard 3RR article, then 1RR was imposed, and they reverted twice in the next two days. If you want to enfirce rules uniformly and fairly, or if you want to start an ArbCom case, first make sure that you have the facts, which have been explained in this discussion again and again, right.

    Secondly, what's with the "Drmies you don’t have the authority to undo DS admin actions unless certain provisions are met." According to WP:GS/SCW, "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard." The blocking admin started a review here, and stated explicitly "I have no objection to any admin restoring TPA, reverting to the p-block, or unblocking outright, if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction." So, please enlighten me, what "authority" did Drmies miss to undo the block, which "provisions" weren't met, and what would warrant an ArbCom case? Please don't needlessly and wrongly create additional drama in an already tense situation. Fram (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fram All articles relates to Islamic state and the Syrian civil war are under a community imposed 1RR restriction, which does not require notices to be enforced: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR. The article was never a "standard 3RR article", it was always under 1RR, it was just that the people editing the article don't seem to have realised that such a restriction existed.
    I completely agree with you about the reversal of the block though, it was brought here for review with the explicit instruction that any administrator could remove it. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not feel happy, however, about sanctioning an editor for breaking 1RR on an article where there was no notice whatsoever about discretionary sanctions on the talk page (and no mention of them in the 21 talkpage threads that existed before the DS notice was added on 3 November), let alone a 1RR notice. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate what I just stated above, until an editor is made aware of the sanctions regime being in effect, it cannot be enforced. So, if we're following the rules to the letter, as noted: Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/alert|syr}} template (emphasis added). Therefore, technically, only those violations that come after that alert, then become sanctionable (or deemed violations, however you phrase it). El_C 10:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And to reiterate what I said above, you are incorrect. 1RR restrictions passed as a remedy do not require awareness to be enforced, 1RR restrictions placed under discretionary sanctions do. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which inevitably leads to the quite reasonable defence by an editor that they could not break a restriction which they were unaware existed, regardless of whether "awareness is required". Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stating the obvious: The endless murkiness and contradictory guidelines and policies and recommendations around GS and 1RR and sanctions thereof need to be straightened out and clarified and codified, stat. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Terrorist propaganda

    Hi

    Could you delete this from history? Panam2014 (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see any WP:REVDEL condition it meets. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving the public the radio station frequency of a terrorist group...I dunno, that might meet the criteria for what we do. Buffs (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs and EvergreenFir: URL of Amaq News Agency have been removed from history. Panam2014 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Panam2014:, while the url was removed from the article on Amaq, the edit removing the url from the article is not revision deleted. What do you mean by URL of Amaq News Agency have been removed from history? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate username

    Jebem vam mamaru (talk · contribs) uses an inappropriate username, which translated from Serbo-Croatian stands for "I F* your mom". This goes against WP:DISRUPTNAME. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The user hasn't edited for 2.5 years, so blocking or not blocking is unlikely to make a difference here. In the future, please report bad usernames to WP:UAA. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Governor Sheng Usernames should only be reported if they have recently edited, likewise last week or two. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they only had three edits, so apparently the mom wasn't a major muse. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A Demonstration of the Untrustworthiness of Information on Wikipedia

    The following was posted here User talk:Doug Weller

    I have often heard warnings about using caution in obtaining information from Wikipedia especially on topics outside of settled factual matters. Your actions prove exactly what I wished to test. I'm summarizing this here to serve as whatever record it may (assuming you don't further abuse your authority to delete or modify this):

    I made the following 2 modifications to the page in Sinauli [34] and you cited both of them as examples of unsourced information: User talk:HandleDePlume

    You, nor any of the other 3 individuals who kept reverting my change, have yet to explain why I need to prove a negative. No mainstream scholar agrees with the assessment that is provided in the quote. It's as simple as that. And yet, instead of presenting any evidence of agreement by mainstream scholars, you simply abused your authority and blocked me. It makes one wonder what your rationale is for controlling information like this.

    And, the other change you cited is quite comedic. The existing source cited was already to a popular non-academic media. My minor change only clarified the sentence.

    It's also interesting the strategy the 4 of you took. From my brief understanding, 3 reversions of an edit in a 24 hour would result in someone being blocked or something negative. So, 3 different editors chose to keep reverting my changes. Not too shabby! HandleDePlume (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If you see your edit being reverted by three editors all way more experienced than you (the number of edits is not always a good measure, but these three editors made 5K, 9K, and 49K edits, respectively, against your 22 edits), you should go to the talk page of the article and discuss. Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your actions prove exactly what I wished to test You made these edits as a "test"?
    • The following was posted here User talk:Doug Weller Huh? Doug Weller didn't post anything related to this here. Why did you add this?
    • Edit to Avestan addition of "hypothesis" wp:WEASEL Everything is a "hypothesis" until validated by multiple studies? wp:WEASEL? Adakiko (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adakiko: They apparently posted this complaint at DW's talk page before reposting it here, because DW indef blocked them from editing the Sinauli article. InsaneHacker (💬) 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1120714848"