Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cunard (talk | contribs) at 07:12, 22 May 2020 (→‎Requests for closure: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
    CfD 0 1 20 0 21
    TfD 0 1 14 0 15
    MfD 0 1 8 0 9
    FfD 0 1 2 0 3
    RfD 0 0 87 0 87
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 8530 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Talk:Space sci-fi 2024-10-07 19:00 2024-10-14 19:00 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Module:Professional wrestling profiles 2024-10-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:AFB game box start 2024-10-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Israeli Special Forces' Operations in 2006 2024-10-07 15:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade
    2014 Zikim attack 2024-10-07 15:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade
    Second Battle of Jabalia 2024-10-07 15:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade
    User:Masti 2024-10-07 11:12 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Favonian
    Vuhledar 2024-10-07 05:27 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Chozhia Vellalar 2024-10-07 05:05 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing 2024-10-07 04:30 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Citrus Series 2024-10-07 02:49 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu
    Cardinals–Royals rivalry 2024-10-07 02:48 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu
    Citrus series 2024-10-07 02:48 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu
    1–70 Series 2024-10-07 02:45 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu
    Show Me Series 2024-10-07 02:20 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu
    Marlins–Rays rivalry 2024-10-07 02:20 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu
    October 2024 central Beirut medical center airstrike 2024-10-06 03:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    October 2024 Dahieh airstrike 2024-10-06 03:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Battle of Odaisseh 2024-10-06 03:13 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Battle of Maroun al-Ras (2024) 2024-10-06 03:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Emblem of Israel 2024-10-06 02:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel) 2024-10-06 01:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Rachna Banerjee 2024-10-05 20:31 2025-04-05 20:31 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Geniac
    Wikipedia:Sign up 2024-10-05 19:01 indefinite edit,move Common target for COI editors and no need for this to be edited by new users; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Stephen-Craig Aristei 2024-10-05 13:28 2025-10-05 13:28 create per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen-Craig_Aristei_(2nd_nomination) OwenX
    Shin Bet 2024-10-05 03:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    User talk:SinisterUnion 2024-10-04 23:41 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry Star Mississippi
    User talk:CrazyLoverFutbolLoko 2024-10-04 23:34 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry Star Mississippi
    SDF insurgency in northern Syria 2024-10-04 22:55 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/SCW&ISIL ToBeFree
    Tulkarm camp airstrike 2024-10-04 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Rawhi Mushtaha 2024-10-04 13:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Ibrahim Aqil 2024-10-03 22:32 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Favonian: Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Protection Helper Bot

    Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash

    No consensus to allow a blocked editor to edit on a new account. As such, blocking for sockpuppetry. They can appeal is 6 months which is the norm. The community at that time can decide how they want to handle it, but I'll note there is a sentiment here that an appeal without socking in that time period should be considered favourably. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Relevant accounts:

    Recently, one of my NPPSCHOOL students, GargAvinash, made an unprompted confession that they had previously been blocked on two other accounts, Kumargargavinash and ADPS. A few days earlier, they had made unblock requests on their originally blocked account, which were declined by ToBeFree and Yamla (see here). Other than these requests, they do not appear to have made any edits between when the first puppet was blocked (July 2018) and when the most recent account was created (January 2020), and prior to that had also taken a long break between September 2017 and July 2018. On the most recent account, GargAvinash appears to have been editing productively in good faith, and has even received autopatrol permissions while also training for NPP. With all that said, I'll leave it to this noticeboard to determine how to proceed with this case. signed, Rosguill talk 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy hell, thanks for revoking. I was on the fence about this one and I went against my gut because I couldn't rationalize any strong reason to decline. But this makes two in a row uncontentious, "academic", single-focus, minor article creators who I tried to trust in spite of my doubts and had to have the tool revoked almost immediately due to their being revealed as apparent paid or promotional editors. Lesson learned, no more putting trust above security concerns in these cases. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm, minor side note, but what do you mean by "academic" in the above comment? signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: I mean that the creations appear to have a straightforward "academic" focus and intent, which gives the user the appearance of being credible, benign and here to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. I generally would not grant Autopatrolled to single-purpose stub creators, but a perceived "academic" motivation would make me more likely to trust them. In this case, Garg was focused on academic institutions. In the other, the user was a supposed astronomer who merely wanted to work on the backlog of celestial bodies lacking articles (I don't recall their name, but I will dig up the case if you want me to; they immediately created a promotion piece after being granted Autopatrolled. This was explained to me by someone as being a known sock tactic.) ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted: Krishan Nandan Prasad Verma and Shailesh Kumar (politician) had just one single revision created by GargAvinash, unambiguously qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Putting aside the rationale for deleting the pair, how do they stand on their own merits? As I view them in their deleted states, they're so amply referenced that they're hard to read; but my impression is that this is conscientious referencing rather than refbombing, that these were worthwhile if unremarkable articles, that their loss is a (minor) misfortune, and that (if we put aside the history for a moment) this is an editor who's an asset to the project. I'm open to being corrected. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In those unblock requests, or on talkpage of GargAvinash, I did not see the statement stating the two other accounts belong to them. Could you please link to it? Or was that statement made off-wiki? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe this is the admission that Rosguill is referring to. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I tried to create a timeline, but the amount of diffs to compile for the eight failed unblock requests alone made me give up. The confession has been made 2020-05-04 in Special:Diff/954768512 at User_talk:Rosguill/GargAvinash_NPPSCHOOL. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I don't see how blocking the GargAvinash account would be WP:PREVENTATIVE, on the other, blocked users circumventing declined unblocks by creating new accounts is probably not something to be encouraged even if they are entirely good faith and helpful. This isn't the first case of that I've seen on this board, so maybe it's worth looking at broader patterns to resolve this. To this specific request, I'd say let GargAvinash continue editing as GargAvinash, and leave the two previous accounts blocked with a tag stating they are former accounts of GargAvinash. I just struggle to convince myself that blocking Garg would be preventative. I trust Rosguill's judgment, and he's clearly keeping an eye on the account, so I'm not very concerned that disruption will return. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, I'm not sure what to think for this case. On the one hand, I agree that there isn't anything really preventative about blocking now, I have yet to notice any significant issues in their editing since the block was lifted, and the most recent unblock requests seem to be reasonable explanations for past editing behavior, and they seemingly had very little to gain by confessing out of the blue. The argument could also be made that the break between 2018 and 2020 could be taken as "time served" for a standard offer unblock. On the other hand, the unblock requests in 2017 and 2018 strike me as less good faith, in some cases clearly deceptive given more recent confessions, and I'm at a loss as to why they requested an unblock on the old account about a week ago. That the original block was related to promotional editing is further concerning for an editor that's beelined to requesting NPP and autopatrol, even if they haven't done anything to suggest abuse on the new account. The reasons for my not immediately revoking autopatrol were that it seemed like it would be cleaner to just implement whatever decision was made at the end of this discussion, with the knowledge that any attempt to use the permission disruptively in the meantime would be quickly caught and make our decision much more straightforward.
      Right now, I'm wondering if the best way to handle this would be to allow them to continue editing, but to indefinitely ban them from requesting additional permissions such as NPP or autopatrol. This would allow them to continue editing productively, while also keeping them away from giving them tools that are reserved for trusted editors. These bans could be reviewed down the road in a few years if there's strong evidence of committed good faith editing. signed, Rosguill talk 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It's all very weird, especially how the COI concerns play in with NPP. I think the ban on permissions other than autoconfirmed and extended confirmed is a good idea. To the extent that they may have a COI or are an UPE, obviously we want to limit the damage, and I think the ban would do that effectively without losing potential positive contributions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll add a {{checkuser needed}} here, as checkuser evidence was used for declining at least one appeal. The user is practically evading a checkuser block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • CU isn't very useful here. Range is very active so all I could look at was the last two weeks. I can confirm they are who they say they are, but a sleeper check is  Inconclusive without knowing what I'm looking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We really aren't sure what to do with these as a Community - I've seen longer cases basically just be ignored, while shorter cases are obviously rejected. I don't have a clearcut answer myself - we are currently squashed between "in no way preventative" and "sets a terrible example" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right then, a clear-cut answer. He did wrong, but he long absented himself (we think), and if he did then in effect he pretty much served his time. He volunteered that he had done the dark deed. He's penitent. Blocking his current ID would not prevent anything that should be prevented. He seems a worthwhile editor; more than that, he seems to be a scrupulous, level-headed editor who understands Indian matters and who can read Hindi; and en:Wikipedia strikes me as terribly short of such people, much needed in the face of energetic and tiresome boosterism. So let his current ID be. No extra permissions for one year, but if he applies any time after that, view the application on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, what? A COI editor who has evaded his block on multiple occasions (no-one seems to have mentioned Gopalagarwal11 here, but that was him too) and we're willing to give him a free pass on that because he can speak Hindi and might contribute to Indian topics? This guy is part of the problem, not part of the solution; I recommend we deal with him the way we always deal with such editors: indef block, standard offer. If this discussion wasn't already underway, I would be implementing that block right now. Yunshui 雲水 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've slept over the issue and agree with Yunshui. Eight failed unblock requests, two of which have been made in April 2020 with the intentional omission of the active sockpuppet. In July 2018, the user lied "I know the account ADPS. It is of a friend of mine."; in October 2019, they created their newest sockpuppet; in March 2020, they requested and received a trust-based autopatrol permission; in April 2020, the user requested an unblock twice at User talk:Kumargargavinash, both times including the reason "I didn't know that creating a new account by a blocked user is against the policy", as if they had learned from the mistake, not speaking a word about having knowingly repeated it since. Only when two appeals had been declined, the user decided to write Special:Diff/954673728 with their sockpuppet GargAvinash, yet required a very friendly inquiry by Rosguill before actually admitting which accounts this is about. A chronic case of dishonesty, this is. As the user is still blocked, and there is clearly no consensus for an unblock here, WP:CBAN applies. Someone uninvolved should close this after at least 24 hours, per "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'", implementing a site-wide ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess this is a bit late now, I wrote it before anyone had replied but because I also wrote a bunch of other stuff and I wasn't sure if I wanted to say it all, I didn't post it. But "If I were Kumargargavinash, I would not wait for a decision or to be blocked on the GargAvinah account. I'd stop using it straight away and wait (at least) 6 months and ask to be unblocked on the Kumargargavinash account." Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I also wrote: This sort of seems to be a case where maybe if Kumargargavinash had tried to get unblocked in January with full honesty, they would have a fair chance of getting unblocked. But even taking WP:CLEANSTART into consideration I don't think we can accept the socking while blocked, especially given the historic problems were both socking and paid editing concerns. No matter that they seem to have been confessed without prompting. Adding now that I've read the other responses, I think it's preventative since it's difficult to trust an editor in these circumstances. While no one has identified any clear problems with their recent editing, it's difficult to be confident they won't re-occur with an editor who feels it's okay to pick and choose what parts of policy they want to obey in a manner way beyond that allowed by IAR i.e. completely ignoring a block. And as others have pointed with the benefit of hindsight, we also see they were misleading us very recently with the April 2020 unblock. They said they understood they weren't allow to sock, but didn't mention they were still socking until confessing to Rosguill later. (I also feel that if we just allow this to pass, this means they and others are more likely to just do the same thing but appreciate some may feel that's not a valid block reason.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Yunshui, ToBeFree, and Nil Einne: we shouldn't even give the perception that we will tolerate block evasion. I also vote for GargAvinash to be community banned for sockpuppetry and block evasion; failing that, a indefinite ban of this newest account, and maybe the standard offer. If the editor stays away for at least six months. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor has demonstrated a long-term trend of dishonesty that continued up to this past month. A block is just as preventative here as the policies for WP:SOCK intend. If someone cannot be trusted by the community due to a history of dishonesty and sock puppetry, then they aren’t given editing privileges until they are believed to be trustworthy again as a preventive measure against future dishonest editing.
      In this case, their honesty started yesterday. Whether they weren’t dishonest from July 2018 – January 2020 is irrelevant if they were dishonest from January 2020 to yesterday. — MarkH21talk 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignore it - I don't see any benefit to blocking him now. Redirect the old accounts to the new account for transparency, but, other than that, this violation of WP:SOCK isn't particularly significant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Allowing a user a free pass encourages them and others to evade blocks/bans. --MrClog (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regretfully, I think I'm now in the block camp. I'm swayed by comments made here, but the clincher is a comment made by GargAvinash. Following comments from ToBeFree that included rhetorical questions and a specific request that GargAvinash not respond to them [1], GargAvinash responded anyway and among other things, claimed that their block evasion with the current account was due to ignorance [2]. This really stretches the limits of my ability to assume good faith, given that the second account, ADPS, was explicitly blocked due to socking. While I can believe that someone may have simply walked away after getting blocked a second time without reading the relevant policies, coming back with a new account a year and a half later is at best negligence, and less charitably could be seen as contempt. I find it difficult to take someone seriously when in the same comment they say that they didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock [while requesting an unblock for Kumargargavinash] because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry and that they nonetheless never intended to...mislead, deceive...or circumvent a block ban or sanction. I'd be willing to entertain a standard offer further down the line, but at this time even that strikes me as being lenient. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Oof. The latest comments suggest that this needs a WP:CIR issue at best, with continued misunderstanding of WP:SOCK.

      I didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry

      Q: why did you continue to edit with the sockpuppet until yesterday?
      A: I admit my stupidity but please watch my edit history. I haven't done anything that violates COI for which I was blocked.

      — MarkH21talk 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (I assume that they started writing their answer before I added the note about the questions being rhetorical, so I wouldn't hold the answering itself against them. It's just the content of the answer that is concerning, as Rosguill and MarkH21 describe in detail. I recommend Kumargargavinash to have a look at this discussion and the whole situation in a few months again.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I still think the ban on advanced permissions is better, on balance, but I will agree that since my last comment here Garg has not been helping their own case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section had been archived after 6 days without messages. We need a formal closure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't take measures against this account - if this user hadn't admitted previous socking, the account wouldn't have been blocked. Admitting it was a good thing, you shouldn't punish for it. 46.117.17.7 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amnesty' Made a fresh start-- leave the past in the past. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Regardless of how people feel about the substance of the main question, I feel the bare minimum is an Account restriction indefinitely banning GargAvinash to one account (logged at WP:EDRC). What they have done should not be taken lightly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've filed a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Administrative_discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came here to close based on Rosguill's request - I think it's clear there's no consensus for unblocking (distinct from a consensus against) at this time and that's how I'd have closed it - but realized I wanted to make a statement beyond what I could as closer. We now have ample evidence that this user can edit productively for a sustained period of time. There are also ways to read good and bad intent into their actions here - I read good faith but can't claim with any sort of certainty that the bad faith readings are wrong. The history of half-truths and deception means I think there will always be reasonable concerns about this editor. And so at each unblock request it will be possible to find a reason why we just shouldn't do it now. And then it never happens. I think each one of those declines would be justified - as it would be here. But I don't think that is the just outcome in the longrun - in this instance. I'm not here saying this user should be unblocked now - I'm genuinely worried about an editor with a history of UPE attempting to gain NPR - but I also don't think never unblocking is just and right now the lack of consensus leads to them being blocked. So I would like to see that presumption flipped and would suggest in 3 or 6 months that if this user has not socked (again) that they be unblocked. I would also support the 1 year prevention of any PERMs beyond confirmed/extended confirmed from the time they're unblocked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a good take. bibliomaniac15 22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree as well. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, what I support is after X time a SO appeal can be made. If there is no consensus about a SO appeal, I am proposing that it would default to accept rather than default to decline. If there is consensus at that time against the SO it would be declined and if there was consensus for it would be accepted. But my proposal is in the case of no consensus that it would default to accepted + 1 year of permission restrictions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal

    Noting that, with TonyBallioni's blessing I have opened back up part of the discussion to see if there is consensus for my proposal. That proposal is no unblock now, but in six months (or more) if there is no consensus at an unblock request that GargAvinash would be unblocked, with a further ban on holding any advanced permissions for a year after unblocking. Should that unblock discussion reach consensus (for unblocking, against it, or something else) that consensus would obviously hold. This merely changes the result in a no consensus at that time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

    I would like for an uninvolved admin or two to keep an eye on this article. There are concerted efforts to include part of the victim's supposed run-ins with the law, as if these things are somehow relevant to him getting shot by these two men. Allegedly shot, of course. I find, and I am not the only one, that such inclusions are distasteful, and I'm putting it mildly. They are BLP violations, because recent deaths fall under the BLP and this information is undue and does not pertain. This is not a biography of a person, it's an account of how an unarmed man was shot by two other men. Allegedly, of course. See also Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Arbery_priors. We can NOT have this article with some tendentious material, which IMO borders on racism. We've seen this before, in the article on Trayvon Martin most particularly, and we should not let this happen again. I have no easy solution here, but I think that some active and proactive administrative oversight might help. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Late at night and I have to sign off. But, these two edits claim that Arbery commited felonies with no source. [3] [4]. Appreciate it if someone would take a look. Even if true, likely a BLP vio. I only spent ten minutes, but couldn’t find a source for a felony conviction. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, claims like this that can't be easily confirmed from RSes in 5-10 minutes need to be removed. The earlier probation about the gun, yes, but the stealing from Walmart I can't find anything about. Will deal with that. --Masem (t) 01:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem:"Arbery [some things] "[5] I cited that source properly when making an edit, which was summarily undone with no discussion – 90 minutes before you censored my post on the Talk page. Can you please put what I wrote back and remove your "final warning", or should I? Tambourine60 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tambourine60, I want you to not post that kind of material anywhere on Wikipedia, OK? Doesn't matter whether it's verified or not--there is no good reason to post that here or anywhere. The material is not relevant to ANYTHING we're doing here, and it's certainly not relevant to the shooting. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a novice at this, and would also love help understanding the relevance in the "Background" section of things like: the "troubled history" of a police chief who "was indicted on charges arising from an alleged cover-up of a sexual relationship that an officer had with an informant" (AFTER Arbery's death, no less), or "Attorney Jackie Johnson who was accused of a coverup…" These are living people whose actions are being included to prejudice (fairly, perhaps) their behavior in the instant case. But how is it possible that it's relevant to include unsubstantiated and unproven accusations against living people as "background" while not including the fact that, say, Arbery was previously convicted by a court of law of theft and other crimes? [6][7] Tambourine60 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All that falls under the BLP as well, but for people who are allegedly involved in an alleged shooting some kinds of prior information are in fact relevant. And if you cannot stop blaming the victim, you will be not partially, but wholly blocked, since it seems you are not here to improve the project but rather to further an agenda. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies and Masem: I have partially blocked two editors from the article today - the above-mentioned User:Tambourine60, who added another false claim on the talkpage about Arbery's priors, and User:Chrisvacc, for this attack on other editors and threat to "take this to the press". There do seem to be a number of low-edit SPA accounts hanging around this article at the moment, all with similar aims as regards inserting material into the article; more admin eyes on the talk page especially would be welcome. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting support for both blocks; Tambourine60's as the commented noted above is clearly a NOTHERE situation, and the one from Chrisvacc as being close enough to a legal threat. (I haven't touched/looked at that page for several days at all, and it falls into my area of where I have several misgivings of how we handle NOTNEWS on topics like this that unfortunately draw editors that are going to spark discussion that may lead to these types of blocks; there's better ways we can edit the mainspace and discuss behind the scenes but neither here nor there of the current proper admin actions). --Masem (t) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, as a reasonably impartial admin (can't be too polite); you're attention would be useful. Even with two article bans; those two can still edit the TP and others are filling their place. One linked to a site I've not heard of (complex.com) with an article mentioning the records of his brother and cousin (the sins of the brother and cousin?). They are discussing inclusion of his "criminal record" without any evidence as to what it might be. Admin only protection won't help as the BLP vios are mostly on the TP. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000: It's deeply ironic that someone with "Objective" in their username is writing this with a straight face. The "evidence" of Arbery's criminal record has been widely reported. But one can't "discuss inclusion" of it, as you suggest, because one gets warned, redacted, and blocked. It's pure Orwell — one can't have a good-faith discussion on the Talk page of whether facts are WP:DUE without acknowledging what the facts are. But as soon as one quotes and cites a mainstream source to identify the facts, they're redacted and blocked for… being "WP:UNDUE". Then you come along and say "these idiots are discussing inclusion of "the facts" without any evidence as to what those might be." Do you see the irony? Because that is quite literally what has happened here. Maybe someone with some actual intellectual and moral integrity and independence will step in, but from what I'm seeing, the people with actual power here are all self-congratulatory sheep applauding each other for fighting "Stormfront", oblivious to the fact that they're actually blocking a Jewish lady whose family survived and escaped totalitarianism and happens to have the courage to think and speak freely. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked them from both the article and the TP. As will any other account be that repeatedly commits any other BLP vios. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Didn't mean to slight your efforts. Just looking for more eyes. BTW, a problem I've seen with partial blocks as I've seen examples elsewhere where those banned hadn't realized it applies to article TPs. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, FYI, one of those you blocked just emailed the other you blocked.[8] Haven't seen that before. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite I believe I am entitled to a specific explanation from you as to how I violated WP:BLP (or any other reason you blocked me). I have read WP:BLP thoroughly and am certain I haven't violated WP:BLPCRIME; I've been entirely "dispassionate" and never suggested the Article should be anything but WP:NPOV; and I have stuck entirely to writing cited, well-sourced facts on the Talk page and this Administrator Messageboard as part of a discussion on what facts are relevant. I have not written a single unsourced fact nor has anyone cited a single source that factually contradicts anything I've written. Indeed, all I did was respond to a warning from Masem about a theft from Walmart with a neutral quote from The Daily Beast which stated verbatim what I had been warned for writing… and the quote itself was censored, along with a lecture from Drmies about how he personally didn't want me posting things he didn't like, whether or not they were verified, because they "blamed the victim" and were part of an "agenda". That's completely outrageous; I have no agenda and believe that it's preferable to include Arbery's prior criminal convictions because they are relevant, have been widely reported in reliable sources, and in fact formed the basis of a prior relationship between the victim and one of the men accused of his murder. As has been widely reported, including in both the instant Article and on its Talk page, on April 7th, DA Barnhill wrote a recusal letter to the State AG in which he stated that "his son, a prosecutor in the Brunswick DA’s office, and McMichael, then an investigator in that same office, 'both helped with the previous prosecution of (Ahmaud) Arbery'" and that his son "'handled a previous felony probation revocation and pleading Ahmaud Arbery to a felony'".[1] I count two felony convictions of Arbery in that statement. I have half-a-dozen other sources, but have a feeling that any more direct quotes from mainstream sources might get me banned forever. Again, this isn't even language or specific information I ever suggested go into the Article—it's factual, sourced information I mentioned on the Talk page in the context of joining an active, ongoing debate and attempt to reach consensus on whether criminal history was WP:DUE. One hopes you can see the absurdity of being warned for allegedly violating WP:DUE in a Talk page discussion of what was and wasn't WP:DUE. Now I've been censored for citing a source on this Administrator Messageboard — literally doing nothing but pasting a quote from an article along with its citation — for the sole purpose of defending myself from being accused of having "no source". I hope it's obvious why it's positively Orwellian to block people for violating WP:DUE by engaging in an ongoing, good-faith discussion of whether something is WP:DUE. Again, please explain specifically why I was blocked. Sincerely, Tambourine60 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite I would also note that you have blocked two editors who would obviously be participating in the RfC on Arbery's priors, just before they had a chance to do so. You and others have also redacted my citations of mainstream-sourced facts about Arbery's priors from the Talk page and this page. This has a very bad smell to it. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020
    Tambourine60 Yes, they were redacted because they were BLP violations, and the last one I redacted wasn't sourced at all - which was unsuprising because it was false. If simply carry on violating BLP after you've been final warned by another administrator, then you should be unsurprised to be blocked, and as another administrator said above, if you don't understand this I probably should have blocked you completely, not just from a single page. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tambourine60, you will not get very far with this claim that I "just don't like" your material. I could just as easily say that "you don't like mine". You can claim you are being "censored" but the only thing that's happening here is that you were asked, and are now implored, to adhere to our guidelines and policies. Think of it as a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. No one hates your feet, but you shouldn't walk in here without shoes on. And if you still don't see how impugning the character of a murder victim is problematic, then yeah, you probably shouldn't be here at all.

    Anyway, maybe some other admin can come along and close this--if Tambourine60 puts his foot in his mouth even further he might get himself blocked for it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies You told me that you, personally, "don't want me" to write "anything like that… even if it's verified" — even though what I had written was nothing but a direct quote from a Daily Beast article, which I was only quoting because it stated facts I had been warned were not in mainstream sources. How else could I possibly respond? And I had originally stated that fact as part of a Talk page discussion on whether those facts were relevant – how can one discuss the relevance of facts on a Talk page if one can't identify those facts? Despite my asking a dozen times, no one has been able to explain to me what specific policy or guideline I've violated – I just keep getting more broad threats of being "entirely blocked" for daring to ask the question. Tambourine60 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could respond by saying something like, "oh, sorry, guess I was wrong". You still fail to grasp that this is a website whose policies and guidelines are being enforced by administrators, and for better or for worse I'm one of them. No, you're not being blocked for something heroic like "daring to ask the question"--you stand a good chance of being blocked per NOTHERE, or maybe ongoing BLP violations.

    For clarity's sake: BLAMING THE VICTIM by continuing to harp on negative aspects of a person's life that have NOTHING to do with the reason their life and death are now part of an encyclopedic article is not allowed. Clear? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Boone, Christian. "EXCLUSIVE: Father of Brunswick shooter previously investigated victim". ajc. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
    Black Kite I've respectfully asked for a specific explanation for your block, so I can better understand Wikipedia editing. You're saying if I don't understand "BLP violations" then you "probably should have blocked [me] completely". This is my understanding:

    "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them… Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers."

    You're saying what I wrote "wasn't sourced at all" — now I've provided the source (which, as I've pointed out, I've cited before and is found in articles already used as sources in the Article). Neither you nor anyone else has provided ANY information contradicting what I wrote, let alone , as you claim, that it is "false" — despite my asking repeatedly for it. Again, can you please either provide evidence that what I wrote was false, and explain what specific BLP policy I violated? Appreciatively, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    331dot Will you please help me? You have refused to unblock me because I "have to demonstrate a better understanding of WP:BLP". I have read and reread WP:BLP and have asked for specific clarification numerous times. I am entitled to that:

    "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them… Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers."

    To say that I am "discouraged" is a gross understatement. I got a first and "final warning" for citing well-sourced information (indeed, the information is in the Article). When I quoted from a mainstream source in my defense, it was redacted. Then I was banned for asserting as fact something from a source I have already cited several times. I have repeatedly been told it's "false" without the slightest evidence being provided. All I want is to understand specifically why I was blocked. The only reason given is "BLP violations" which is unspecific and jargony, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. Can you please specifically explain how I would "demonstrate better understanding of WP:BLP" so that I may be unblocked? Thanks, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • You said that Arbery had been convicted (and that is the important word) of two felonies. You provided no source for this. Since then, on your talk page you mentioned Barnhill's comments - neither of those used the word "convicted" and they were Barnhill's words anyway and so should have been attributed at the very least. Even if Barnhill's claim that they "had a felony record" is true, that is not "two convictions" - it may be, it may not be. Do you understand the problem now? Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black KiteI really appreciate your explanation and now finally understand that I was blocked specifically for failing to cite or source information I presented as factual. Is the "BLP violation" that I disseminated "contentious material about a living person that… is unsourced or poorly sourced"? If so, the BLP element now makes sense to me. I thought I had been blocked for writing something WP:UNDUE, which made zero sense to me as it was in the context of a Talk page solicitation about what was/wasn't WP:DUE. I'm glad to have that clarified. As you point out, certainly no one has provided any source which contradicts in any way what I wrote, so it's not that I posted demonstratively "false" information, as many have claimed, but as you say, that "it may be, it may not be" true. I completely understand that in your view I erred by assuming that my having cited/sourced the information in the same context on the same Talk page more than once before, I didn't need to re-attribute and re-cite the source. I can certainly see now how, had I provided the attribution/source along with that statement, it would have been clearer why I had presented the information. Not doing so was entirely my error and I will do my utmost to always cite and attribute each piece of information, regardless of whether I've done so before – I can clearly see how that will help avoid future conflict — and I wholeheartedly apologize for not doing so in the instant example. Very truly, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite:@331dot: Is there something further I need to do vis a vis my unblock request? As soon as I was given a specific explanation for why I was blocked, I grasped the issue, apologized for the error, which was made while editing in good faith, and have resolved not to repeat the mistake. Again, I'm new to this, and so I'm reaching out to you because you blocked me and declined to unblock me, respectively, and I'm not sure what else to do. Sincerely, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tambourine60, I believe you understand what you did, and I think you are on your way to being unblocked. I am not an administrator, but I can say that instant unblock requests are rarely granted. Now, I don't think you need to wait a great amount of time, but maybe edit some other articles and give it the weekend? Something like that? I think you'd make a much more compelling case if you can just let things cool down for a couple of days. But, as I say, I am no expert either. Cheers, and best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisvacc, filed by me. starship.paint (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Black Kite:@Masem: I know you've taken it upon yourselves to address what you see as BLP violations on the Talk Page for the Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery article. Steve Quinn's description of the innocent McMichaels as "killers"[1], with no qualification and no RS cited inline, appears to my admittedly novice eye to be a serious WP:BLP violation. I've brought my concerns to the attention of both Steve Quinn and Drmies, but have been mocked and/or ignored. Thanks for your prompt attention! Tambourine60 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tambourine60, "innocent"? In the sense that they haven't been proven guilty yet, or are you suggesting they aren't guilty? And did they not kill Arbrey? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that legally, the McMichaels are 100% innocent (100% not guilty, if you prefer) in the matter of Arbery's death. As to other forms of "guilt" and "innocence": adjudging sinners would seem to be outside the narrowly proscribed boundaries of Wikipedia editing. This is a very important distinction—in the US, even people accused but not convicted of heinous crimes ARE innocent—and that's not a different kind or quality of "innocence" than that of someone who has never been accused of anything at all. According the coroner's report, Arbery was the victim of a homicide,[2] and thus was "killed". But clearly no one has been found to be his "killer" or to be guilty of "killing" him. So to call the McMichaels "killers" is prima facie defamatory. As it says in the Wikipedia material regarding BLP guidelines, without proper inline sourcing: "It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter." Tambourine60 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide a source, an NYT source, that delineated what happened in that very section. Also, it is very clear from all the RS and video that he was killed and there were killers involved. That's essentially what I wrote about. Also, RS has covered who killed him and who else was involved in pursuing and blocking Arbery. This like Wikilawyering - or something like that. Picking nits? Also, Tambourine60, please read my most recent reply[10], [11], to the concerns you mentioned on your talk page [12]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the killers. They have admitted that. They just deny murder, they think the killing was lawful. Murder is a crime while killing is not always a crime.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I see no reference to them as "killers"—every RS I've seen has described them as "alleged killers" and the like. I fully understand the difference between killing and murder. And what's the RS where have "they" admitted that "they are the killers" (plural)? Again, I believe this to be defamatory and a violation of WP:BLP, which states: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." That would certainly seem to apply to the McMichaels and referring to them as "dogged killers" as opposed to simply acknowledging that they have been accused of a crime. Tambourine60 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm Washington Post reporting "...Both McMichaels were charged with murder and aggravated assault, and the GBI has confirmed that Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery..." So the man shot Arbery, killing him, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, but you object to "killer"? Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I fully understand the difference between killing and murder." But earlier you made comments that show that you were totally unaware of the differeces between murder, manslaughter and killing until I came and enlightened you. You said "no body has been found to be guilty of "killing" him"" and "It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter". Someone who doesn't know the differences between murder or manslaughter and killing shouldnt get involved in that article IMO.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Travis McMichael's gun apparently fired the fatal shots. His father, Gregory McMichael made a preliminary statement to police in which he allegedly claimed that Travis fired a single shot from his shotgun—but I see no evidence that he has ever said that this single shot hit, let alone killed, Arbery.[3] I'm unaware of any report that either McMichael "admitted" to shooting or killing anyone (let alone that they both did), or of any evidence whatsoever that Gregory has shot or "killed" anyone in either a colloquial or literal sense (let alone that he "admitted" it).
    • SharabSalam: you haven't "enlightened" me and I have no idea why you think I'm confused as to the terms — perhaps you're unaware that it is entirely possible to be convicted of murder without actually "killing" someone in any usual sense of that word. Perhaps I can enlighten you further on the difference between two words: "killer" and "killers". Again, with no RS as required by WP:BLP, you claim" "They are the killers. They have admitted that." Stating that two men have confessed to killing someone without providing any source is an obvious BLP violation: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." Since I have seen zero evidence that either man admitted to killing or murdering anyone, I ask yet again the question you appear to be avoiding: where is your source for the above statement?
    • Drmies, The Post reported that the GBI claims Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery, and that claim should be attributed to the GBI on the Talk page as well. More to the point: you will note that I did not object to the singular word "killer" but that I asked for and have seen no reference to them as "killers" (plural). The "plural" was not decorative, and I'm still waiting.
    • Steve Quinn, per BLP: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." The McMichaels have been commonly described as "alleged killers" or "suspected killers"—but not as "killers", without qualification. Why is it so difficult to write that they're "alleged killers" – especially when neglecting to do so could easily be seen as an attempt to "smear" innocent men?
    It's hard to understand how you all, who are at such pains to protect the image of one innocent person involved with this tragedy, are so cavalier about defaming other innocent people involved. WP:NPOV, anyone? Tambourine60 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Dr. Steve says, "take two chill pills and call me in the morning" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed TBAN of Tambourine60

    I have to agree with not here. I'm OK with an indefblock. Either way at this point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Against This is clearly motivated by a desire to retaliate for pointing out the BLP violations of those proposing this ban mere hours before (see immediately above). Two of the above have suggested banning me rather than replying to my substantive concerns about what they've posted. SharabSalam has proposed banning me, rather than simply providing an RS for her/his unsourced and obviously contentious claim regarding Gregory and Travis McMichael: "They are the killers. They have admitted that." For pointing out the obvious BLP violation in making such unsourced and defamatory claims, s/he is proposing to ban me. I have contributed valuable information to the article and to the discussion that is in no way "pressing a narrative" – including asking for sources for the above claims. Look at my last edits on the article and talk page — I'm advocating for including the fact that the shooting was found to be a homicide, revealing a nuanced view when viewed concurrently with my position that innocent men should not be described as "killers" on Wikipedia. My views on relevance of prior connections between principle actors involved in the shooting and subsequent investigation may be those of a minority, but they have violated no policy or guideline of which I've been made aware. I was warned and briefly partially blocked for not citing sources (neither the warning nor the partial block had anything to do with the content of what I had added) and, as a new user, accepted responsibility, wholeheartedly apologized and been scrupulous in citing RS ever since. To suggest I lack "competence" is totally without merit; there is no "consensus" on the issue of relevance, as the open Rfc on this issue makes abundantly clear. Tambourine60 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure if you are joking or just don't know, in both cases you are wasting our time and your time. Both Travis and his son chased Arbery and killed him. Killing alone is not a crime. You have confused the word "killing" with "manslaughter". Killing means to cause death to someone. Both Travis and his son caused the death to Arbery as they even themselves said. "According to a police report, Gregory McMichael said he saw Arbery run by and recognized him from the break-ins. He and his 34-year-old son Travis McMichael then grabbed a shotgun and a pistol and got into their truck to go after Arbery, the report says." "Once they caught up to him, Gregory McMichael told investigators Arbery "violently" attacked Travis and the two fought "over the shotgun" before Travis shot twice and killed him."[13]. They are only saying that they killed Arbery in self-defence. They didnt deny that they killed Arbery. You are wasting our time and your time calling for the ban of an editor who didnt say anything wrong. You have made too many posts above just trying to sanction another editor just because you got sanctioned. You are treating Wikipedia as a battleground. You also keep saying that Travis and his son are innocent e.g ([14]) when there is still no confirmation of that. You seem to be confusing "innocent" with "presumed innocent". You cant say someone is innocent or guilty when the court hasnt say anything in this regard. I do think that you are WP:NOTHERE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Different issue

    This is an off-topic post and inappropriate. If this is a substantive complaint please open your own complaint on the ANI board. Afterall, it's free (meaning there's no charge).---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC) non-damin close[reply]

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

    I am not certain if this is going to get me into trouble, but I would like to lodge a small complaint against User:Drmies for leaving a summary on my Talk page, saying that I had been "Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons", in relation to an edit I made on the Arbery article (I had not known at the time that a dispute was being waged on that article's Talk page). Regardless, what I added was not about a living person, and I cited three different references (NY Post, Graham Media, and CNN). So, Drmies' chastisement of me was false on not one, but two counts. Drmies then appears to have gone through edits of mine from months ago, nominating for deletion one article about a South African law firm that I had tried to help Wikipedia by adding references to, and deleting a paragraph from another article about a law firm that is active in the Innocence Project (an action I would not really object to, were it not for the creepy factor that the deletion seemed personally motivated by the admin's "hunt" against me). Is there any function or protocol on Wikipedia where admins are counseled to maybe not be so aggressive when they act alone in meting out their interpretation of the wiki-law? (A bit ironic, is it not, considering what the McMichaels did?) - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Buckaboob Bonsai, BLP relates to people who are "recently" deceased as well, and defines "recently" broadly. BLP still applies to Arbrey based on the recent nature of his death and its coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, What about the policy here? It prohibits "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." In the course of just 11 minutes, the above-mentioned admin warned me about adding "unreferenced" references that link to NY Post, Graham Media television, and CNN; then killed off references that I added to an entirely unrelated article on February 26th, then nominated for deletion an entirely different article that I added some references to. I would love to hear an explanation for how that is not "hounding". - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, this strikes me as weak tea. Your evidence of hounding is a templating, which can certainly be annoying, but happens. Then we have an AfD nomination and an edit with which you don't seem to particularly disagree. Now if this were a part of a larger course of conduct, you might well have something, and it may get there yet. But as it stands, in my non-expert, non-administrator opinion, this doesn't even come close to Wikihounding. Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken with all due respect, I appreciate you weighing in, and I can understand your points. Maybe some others will chime in, too. Now, how would you have felt if I had rather said, "I don't give a flying fuck about weak tea"? Before you answer, see this reference from just minutes ago. It seems to me there is a good time and a place to treat other human beings with respect (and that's just about always and everywhere), and a very rare time and place when the heat actually needs to be turned up. Since January, I have been enjoying working on Wikipedia, and then this one admin causes me to question whether I'd every want to smile again when clicking the Edit button. It's human nature. Nastiness begets a desire to retaliate. Maybe I made a mistake on the Arbery article. Maybe it was a terrible mistake. But nothing prior to that was any indication that I wasn't here to collaborate, which Drmies is now accusing me of, on top of the insults he previously leveled. A flying fuck, indeed. How professional. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You may do as you like with my weak tea! I try (and occasionally succeed) to be both collegial and civil, but there will always be sharp elbows on Wikipedia. Here's hoping you have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Suffice to say, this does not rise to the level of hounding. It's quite common, when an editor finds a problem edit, to check the contributions of the editor. If the subsequent changes were baseless (ie. just reverting everything you'd contributed for the last several days), you might have an argument for targeted editing. That does not appear to be the case here: Drmies made a valid BLP edit, and then found one edit in your contributions they thought was inappropriate & one article they felt qualified for deletion discussion. These actions do not IMO rise to harassment or hounding.
    Further, tacking this complaint onto another completely unrelated thread, just because Drmies was involved in that thread, is not a good look.
    Overall, I'd say this isn't going to go anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00

    The consensus is that the user be unblocked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am carrying over the unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00 from UTRS

    MagicJulius00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    User was CBANned for persistent socking under WP:3STRIKES. A recent check user check did not reveal any recent socking.

    Despite of being blocked and banned in English Wikipedia, or before being blocked, I created 4 sockpuppet accounts, User:UnitedPhilippines02, User:GoodLife123, User:WowMagic18 and User:MagicJulius. I do not know why these three accounts; User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio and User:Mycadaniellabacar were included in Category:Confirmed Wikipedia Sockpuppets of MagicJulius00. Since I was blocked in 2018 and banned in 2019, I focused on editing and creating articles and pages in Wikidata, Tagalog Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia projects. The reason why I created many accounts is because I want to edit more in Wikipedia. It breaks me when an administrator will reply to my appeal in UTRS and will decline it. They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned. If this appeal will be denied, then I will not appeal again.

    There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.

    Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose unblocking. There's not enough here that demonstrates the user knows what they did was wrong. Yes, they created accounts because they wanted to edit here, but that is inappropriate. Yes, they are sad when they are caught by administrators evading their block, but that's their fault. They've repeatedly asked for an unblock while simultaneously evading their block. See for example, the unblock request from 2019-07-03. Note that there's no evidence of block evasion this time around, so my opposition is based on prior behaviour and no demonstration of understanding. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking - Although I believe in second chances, there's not enough in this appeal that they are ready for it just yet. In unblock requests, I look for indication that the user understands what they did wrong that got themselves blocked and a plan for how they want to contribute once they are unblocked. I recommend that this user takes contributing to this project seriously and that Wikipedia is not a game. They should also walk away from Wikipedia for a significant period of time (maybe 6 months or 1 year) and take this time to think about what they did wrong and figure out how they can convince us that they are worthy of getting unblocked. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking - An extensive history of socking, and the unblock request does not show any understanding of why what they did was wrong. Wanting to edit Wikipedia is not enough: all Wikipedia editors want to edit Wikipedia, but when one has a history of abuse of editing privileges, some presentation of reform must be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking: Per above, I also see a history of socking and a lack of understanding. That's enough for me to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking: User lacks understanding of why they were blocked in the first place, nor why sockpuppeteering is wrong. Also, it sounds like they are trying to argue that four accounts listed as sockpuppets are not, it makes me think that they are trying to sow confusion or have accounts that are likely sockpuppets as determined by CheckUsers unblocked. Either way, this is immature. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 18:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - I'm a bit confused at the sentence "They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned." Did the user sock less than 6 months ago, but figure they didn't want to wait the 6 month period before appealing? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that's what they mean. Seems like a bit of an English language mistranslation here, but I suspect the user was frustrated that each of the reviewing administrators provided a similar response (basically "not good enough") and told them to wait 6 months per WP:SO. Eventually, the reviewing admins got sick of the repeated appeals and told him to stop. I think he interpreted that as a requirement that he must not appeal the block for 6 months. AlexEng(TALK) 23:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking – though what we're really talking about here is removing the CBAN imposed by 3STRIKES. Honestly, I sympathize with this user's predicament. They made a mistake, and they were blocked. All of the issues on their admittedly long rap sheet stem from a desire to edit despite the block. Clearly, English is not their first language, but that doesn't mean they can't make effective contributions to the project. I'm looking at their most recent sock from July of last year GoodLife123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I don't see any serious issues with the contributions. The edits they made on that sock are live on the pages to this day. For this user, I subscribe to the WP:ROPE school of thought. Maybe we unban them, and suddenly all of the ban evasion issues are a moot point and they become a useful contributor? Maybe not, and then we just ban them again. They've been good for almost a year. If they're ever going to get another chance, now is the time. AlexEng(TALK) 23:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking per AlexEng. "WP:ROPE school of thought." starship.paint (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Unblocking per AlexEng. Watch the users contribs and block again if there is problematic behaviour. WP:ROPE! --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that's what it indicates. The user should be informed they could make another unban request where they demonstrate an understanding of what lead to the block in the first place and address the other concerns raised here. That is, this is not the end of the line for them. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, more people are supporting now! Foxnpichu (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking - Although they created multiple accounts, I'm not seeing that they used those accounts in an abusive way. For example, User:MagicJulius might be a sock of User:MagicJulius00, but honestly, that's not an attempt to avoid scrutiny. User:WowMagic18 posted a bunch of retired templates on other accounts' user pages [15] - not exactly trying to get away with anything there, either. User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio, and User:Mycadaniellabacar have made zero edits. User:UnitedPhilippines02 made one edit, creating a user page. User:GoodLife123 made 6 edits, none of which seem malicious (or incorrect). I'm not seeing any damage caused by this user. Seems more misguided than malicious, and reading the user talk page, I think their previous requests should have been granted, and more explanation given. Simply repeating "you have not shown that you understand what you did wrong" is ... it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops. I support a second chance because this user has not been given one yet. (I also see that some of the people opposing unblocking have, themselves, gotten into trouble for socking, and were given a second chance. Kinda poor form to deny that to other editors, IMO.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • To add: I think one thing we forget is that the people who want to sock, can just sock. It's so trivially easy to sock without being detected, and I mean so fucking easy, that whenever someone who is blocked for socking asks to be unblocked and commits to using one account, we really should lean heavily towards doing that. It's way, way better for a sockmaster to be open and to use one account "publicly", because the alternative is that they use other accounts we don't know about and can't track. I have a hard time believing that anyone who asks to be unblocked from socking has malicious intent; people with malicious intent will just keep socking. And I think setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking as per Levivich, second chances shouldn't be too hard to get, also they have made productive edits in other projects since their block, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking I just looked through Julius' global contributions and they've been contributing constructively to tlwiki and wikidata as they state in the unblock request. I think it's really quite obvious that they want to be unblocked so that they can help build this encyclopedia too. It boggles my mind that this is so controversial, and I agree with Levivich, especially, when they say it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops...people with malicious intent will just keep socking...setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part. Plus we have CU evidence that the editor hasn't socked recently so unblock seems the best choice for the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng. I read a lot of the unblock requests and it seems that a few of the admins just responded as if they were robots (and also not dealing with someone with English fluency) which didn't help the matter. Perhaps in another place there should be a discussion about unblock requests and how groveling shouldn't be the requirement to get unblocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng - Their unblock requests are pretty atrocious however as noted above English isn't their first language and given they've not actually harmed the project I see no reason to decline this, I'm sure this editor won't mess up the only final chance here, Also supporting per ROPE. –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking as I see useful global contributions and no recent socking. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Drmies abusing administrative privileges.

    This appears to be a quest to settle scores after Drmies mistook this extremely argumentative IP for another argumentative IP/sock. No admin tools have been abused against the IP, and the mistaken identity has been clarified. Warnings are not threats. You're not a victim, and this has gone on long enough. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Drmies suggested[16] that I come here after he taunted and insulted me, and then locked the page down so that I couldn't respond.

    This is part of a part of a pattern of abuse, starting when he threatened to block me[17] for a completely legitimate edit, while falsely accusing me of vandalism and trolling.

    It turns out that he had mistaken[18] me for some other editor who also happened to have an IP instead of an account, which is why he thought I was edit-warring. In fact, I made a single change[19] and then immediately[20] opened a discussion about it. While not everyone is going to agree with the merit of the change, it was based on three reliable sources that directly supported it, so it would be unreasonable to call it vandalism.

    On that talk page, Drmies accused me of trolling and of being a sock puppet[21][22]. Ironically, he sided with User:Nigel Abe, an actual sock puppet troll who was subsequently blocked.

    So, the short version is that Drmies abused his power to WP:BITE me by being extremely hostile, insulting, and threatening at every turn. He was mistaken about my identity because he couldn't tell two completely different IP's apart, and instead of acknowledging his error and backing down, he doubled down with more threats.

    In my opinion, this is not acceptable behavior for someone who represents this project. I would like him censured for this and demand a public apology. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I just attempted to serve notice on his talk page, as the instructions require, but he's locked it down so that I can't! This is just more of the same indifference to the rules he's supposed to be enforcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're taking things out of order. He started off with the assumption of good faith but then noticed you sounded like the other IP he just blocked. Whether you were lying or mistaken, such a screw up gives little reason to bother with the rest of your report. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not great behavior all around, but nothing actionable here. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BD2412, I'm looking, but I can't see any edits of the IP that are troublesome. I do see several edits of Drmies that aren't very nice. Also, accusing an editor of being a sock is not within policy. If you suspect someone is a sock, either do an CU open an SPI, etc. Also, the tone of the edits is not the way an admin should act. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's edits to the referenced user talk page seem to me to have a sharply negative tone - beginning with "don't darken my talk page again or I'll report you for stalking". BD2412 T 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BD2412, he's talking to a sock. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As it turns out, but he clearly didn't know that at the time. BD2412 T 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your concern about context, but I did know that he came to my talk page and falsely accused me of having "been reverted multiple times and have not yet come to the talk page". I think that explains my unhappy reaction.
    Now how do you explain the abusive behavior by Drmies, which is actually what's under discussion here? No amount of blaming me can make Drmies' behavior more acceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the limited protection of the user talk page, I can see no legitimate reason for an IP to be editing the talk page of an indef-blocked sock. If there is a dispute with respect to an article, the discussion should take place on the talk page of that article, and not spread to numerous other pages. BD2412 T 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian.thomson, That doesn't sound like a great AGF to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't even protect his talk page himself. Regardless, I served him a notice of this discussion. Do note that if you know enough about Wikipedia to tell someone not to bite you, you aren't a newcomer. With regards to the accusation of sock puppetry, I would say that the location of both IPs here - for privacy purposes I won't list the locations - are sort of similar, though still a reasonable distance. You also became active after about a month of near radio-silence - just one edit - two days after the other IP (72.86.138.120) was blocked. I can see where Drmies suspicion was coming from. MrClog (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a little surprised to see his talk page protected for over two years.[23] Isn't that against Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages? PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PackMecEng, if you ever run for admin and you get those magic glasses, you'll see why. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PackMecEng, still goes against the blocking policy though. I don't see any exception there for admin pages being allowed to have indef protection. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    God help us all if I ever think that is a good idea. I have seen the crap your kind has to put up with. PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd make a better admin, and I know I'm an asshole. HalfShadow 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian.thomson, his first two comments on the Brothers of Italy talk page preceded the threat on my talk page by a few minutes, but they were already hostile. He hinted at equating me with a blocked troll ("I don't think you're the same person as the IP I just blocked, but I could be wrong.") and then falsely accused me outright ("drop it: it's trolling. Funny--you write just like that other IP editor. Y'all related?") Seven minutes later, he came to my talk page to threaten me.

    As Sir Joseph pointed out, none of this looked like assuming good faith. For that matter, neither is insisting that I was "lying or mistaken" and therefore we should ignore what Drmies did.

    In response to BD2412, I suggest that my behavior cannot rise to the credible threat of blocking because I don't have that ability. With more power comes more responsibility, so we should hold Drmies to a higher standard. In addition, my "sharply negative tone" was in direct response to his abusive behavior addressed at a now-blocked troll, yet never rose to the level of abuse, so you're blaming the victim for being angry about being victimized. He falsely accused me, insulted me, and threatened me. How is that ok? Why is my anger the problem here and not his behavior?

    MrClog, we've seen that Drmies completely failed to notice an actual sock puppet right in front of him but loudly accused me of the same without any evidence. If he really thought I was a sock puppet, I'm sure he knows procedures to verify this. (BTW, please feel free to apply whatever procedures you want; I'm not anyone but myself.) So his accusations served only to intimidate. That's not acceptable and it's entirely actionable.

    Also, MrClog, Drmies did protect the talk page of that sock puppet[24], as I said. I don't know if he's the one who protected his own, but that's also unacceptable. How can someone be an administrator while making it impossible for people to contact him on his own talk page? What is going on here?! 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One more correction: the comment about not darkening my doorstep was not made to Drmies. It was on the talk page of the sock puppet that Drmies backed and was not addressed at Drmies. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I did really think the IP was a sock puppet, and I do know turned out not to be the case. And yet I think anyone will see the resemblances between the sockhopping edit warrior and this IP, who picked the matter up so quickly and in the same passive-aggressive tone and with the exact same argument. That I "failed to notice" this other sock--meh, I'm not familiar with the master. There's hundreds of socks editing these pages every day, and some of them are sometimes right, as this one was in this case. The meat of the argument is very simple anyway: the IP sock and the IP editor want a general statement in the article that proclaims something as fact, whereas the provided source clearly marks the supposed fact as one person's opinion--maybe a very worthy opinion--and thus it should be properly ascribed in the proper place in the article--not dropped as a fact in the infobox, which is the essence of POV pushing. And Sir Joseph, if someone is POV pushing, it's silly to continue to apply AGF. Not a death pact.

    If anyone wants to unprotect Nigel Abe's talk page, that's fine with me, but the IP will turn it into a soapbox to taunt me and to discuss things with a sock editor who has no interest in responding and is probably back with a new account already. It's all very useless. And here we are, wasting more time with an editor whose edits may have displayed an intent to improve the project, but by now it's just trolling. Someone should tell them to stop pinging me; I'm feeling harassed, and that's harassment by ping. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies, was it acceptable for you to accuse me of vandalism and threaten to block me, given that all I did was make a single change that you happened to disagree with? Was it ok to publicly call me out as a sock puppet just because I also happen not to have an account? Was it ok to block edits to your own talk page for two years? Was any of this ok?
    Do you intend to accept any responsibility for your actions? Do you have any regret at all, except at the inconvenience that this has caused you? Are you going to do this all over again to someone else the next time you have the opportunity?
    Those are the questions I'd like answers to; from you, or from those who are responsible for punishing abusive behavior by fellow administrators. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional request: I would like Drmies' talk page to be immediately unprotected unless there is actual, ongoing vandalism. This is what policy demands, and it's especially egregious for an administrator to use their power to silence those who would respond to them. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, he did not protect his own talk page. Please stop casting aspersions w.r.t. to the protection of his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He protected the sock puppet's talk page, which is what led to this. He also kept his own page protected. I don't know if he's the one who first protected it, but there's no reason it should be protected now. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clear boomerang. The issue starts from here when an IP (72.86.137.151 ) added controversial content, which was reverted here by User:Checco. The IP then reverted Checco with this edit summary Checco being Checco, edit warring because he is always in the right. The IP was reverted again but this time by User:Nigel Abe. The IP was blocked later for personal attacks e.g ([25],[26],[27]) and editwarring. Just 2 hours later Nigel gets reverted by a new IP 68.197.116.79 who is the OP. Then Nigel reverts the IP/OP here. Nigel then made a warning to the IP/OP saying Hello, your edits at Brothers of Italy are becoming disruptive. You’ve been reverted multiple times...[28] the IP/OP responded by saying That turns out not to be the case. I edited that article exactly once... and You owe me a retraction and an apology, good sir..[29] then made a post in Nigel's talk page asking him to apologize saying You slandered me on my talk page.[30]. A warning by Drmies was sent to the IP. IP accused Drmies of "threatening him" The IP 72.86.136.17 shows up the next day and reverts Nigel here, the IP gets reverted by Drmies. Recently Nigal was blocked and the IP/OP started telling Drmies that he sided with a sockpupppet and that Drmies should apologize which is IMO stupid, no one knew that Nigel was a sockpuppet and no one actually sided with the sockpuppet himself but with the correct content. There was no threatening and I suggest that the IP should stop demanding an apology from other editors with that attitude. Also, when there is a disputed content you should not reinstate the content unless there is consensus read WP:BRD.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is a definite case of blame-the-victim. Whatever you think of me, Drmies' actions are still unacceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was wrong. This isn't just blaming the victim; it's blaming the victim by bringing up irrelevant stuff. I'm not responsible for the behavior of User:72.86.137.151 and nothing they did is any excuse for Drmies to threaten to block me for "vandalism" when it was a good-faith edit.
    Nothing I did excuses Drmies' actions. Nothing you brought up, no matter how irrelevant, excuses Drmies' actions. He abused his administrative privileges and he abused me. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behaviour has been disruptive, you are treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Instead of playing the victim card and demanding an apology, consider... apologising yourself? --MrClog (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as you might like otherwise, my behavior is not at issue here. Nothing I did forced Drmies to abuse their administrative privileges.
    Simple question: When they accused me of vandalism and of being a sock puppet, was that acceptable? Yes or no? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite posibly one of the greatest WP:BOOMERANG moments I've ever seen. Ed6767 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    On a side note, I see the bickering going on at[4] maybe it's best if you both ignore each other and stay off each other's talk pages. 194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Revision as of 22:10, 18 May 2020 by User Steve Quinn".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    2. ^ "Ahmaud Arbery's death ruled a homicide". ABC Columbia. 2020-05-13. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
    3. ^ "Public Release Incident Report for G20-11303" (PDF). Glynn County Police Department. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 2, 2020. Retrieved May 7, 2020 – via The New York Times.
    4. ^ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.197.116.79

    Inappropriate behavior in the Ritual (film) article

    Wikipedia administrators,I tried to insert the name of the second screenwriter (Joe is the first) , but another person (Juliete) blatantly deleted it. There is a link after her name , totally fine and clickable. Please tell Juliete that this is not OK to delete names of people , who worked hard on this film. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ritual_(2017_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • OP has been repeatedly reverted and asked to provide a source. I protected the page with a note that they discuss. I have given them a warning for edit warring. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I would have thought, Deepfriedokra, that when two editors, one registered and confirmed, and one unregistere4d, are reverting back and forth, that protection to mrequire auto-confirmed, which stops one but not the other from editing, was not the best tactic. Is that what other admins would do? I posted to the article talk page, pinging the registered editor, and was about to warn the non-registered editor, when I saw your protection edit. I would add that the IP did not notify the registered editor of this thread, as should have been done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's appropriate to stop the edit warring. It's not like one side loses and the other side wins. They can now discuss on the talk page. ALso, I think SP is the least restrictive action. WOuld it be better to allow the disruption to continue? WOuld it be better to prevent anyone from editing? Also, I believe it was more than one editor they were warring with. Please feel free to remove protection if you think it inappropriate. What would you have done? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Deepfriedokra If it is a true edit war, then you have advantaged one party by your choice of protection. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Guidance_for_administrators particularly Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e. in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deepfriedokra: I left a message in response to DESiegel's comment on the relevant Talk page. Since you protected this article and left a note, I would be glad to hear your opinion on my explanations of why I don't believe it was an edit warring case on my end. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Inviting Izno and other interested administrators to express their opinion. Thanks. Juliette Han (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Deepfriedokra, I would have warned both editors, first on the article talk page (with a ping to the registered editor), and then on the IP's talk page, threatening a block if the reverts did not stop. Thew history looks to me like only two editors involved. The registered editor has already responded at the article talk page, BTW, and says that the edits were hoax-vandalism, and so, reverts were not edit warring. I tend to disagree, but no more reverts are happening, so ... DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This looks clearly to me like disruptive editing by an IP who is adding false information into articles and citing sources that do not support the content. The IP is now also doing the same with Midsommar (film), and probably needs to be blocked soon if they continue with this vandalism. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Normally I'm opposed to semi-protection when there is an edit war between confirmed editors and non confirmed ones or IPs. As said, it effectively favours the non confirmed ones in the dispute whereas per WP:WRONGVERSION etc, neither side should be intentionally favoured or both should be sanctioned. However I have a hard time caring when a said below, the editor is adding info in manner worse than without providing a source. They are providing a source but it doesn't support what they are adding. Such editing is IMO far worse then your run of the mill addition of unsourced information, since I think we all know that when there is a source provided, often editors will just assume it's correct. At least the editor seems to insist on drawing our attention to the fact they are doing this but still..... Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      I forgot to mention that the other problem is semi protection disadvantages all non confirmed editors even over edits which aren't in conflict and where it may not be needed because those who are actually causing the problems could simply be blocked. Anyway as I said considering the major problems with the IP's edits combined with the fact the article is fairly obscure so there probably wasn't any other non confirmed editor likely to edit, it's not worth worrying too much about what happened.

      But it is worth remembering that in a case that is more of a wash where it's clearer both sides are edit warring over a change which is arguable either way, semi protection only stops edit warring because it ensure one side "wins" rather than stopping it partly randomly. (Although it is true that despite WRONGVERSION, in reality even just protecting whatever you encounter can mean you are more likely to favour the editor who is faster on the draw and therefore potentially more aggressive in the edit war.)

      I mean I guess if you visit an article and find it's currently at the version preferred by the confirmed editor, functionality it's fairly similar to full protection or just blocking everyone (or semi protecting where both sides are non confirmed). But if you visit an article and it's currently at the non-confirmed preference version and semi-protect then what may easily happen is the confirmed editor reverts one more time then it ends since the non-confirmed can no longer edit war. If you plan to block the confirmed editor if they do that, then I guess that is okay but in practice I think the confirmed editor simply gets their last edit in without consequence.

      I agree with DES that in the general case, the best bet is probably just to warn both editors and block anyone of them who continues. In most cases a partial block for the article will likely be sufficient ensuring they can take part in the discussing the dispute while not being able to edit war.

      Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I was AGFing and hoping OP would discuss their proposed changes on the talk page. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User wallyfromdilbert threatens me and actively deletes my contributions without any reason

    Wikipedia administrators,I’m sorry to bother you again ,but now user wallyfromdilbert says that I vandalize Wikipedia , threatens me with blocking from editing and deletes my contributions without giving a reason. I didn’t vandalize Wikipedia , I mentioned a proving link. I ask you to open the previous page- I want to re-add the screenwriter with a new link. Why didn’t wallyfromdilbert give me a reason to delete my good quality contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been explained on your talk page. You must provide a reliable source that supports the added material. Unsourced material or material that is not supported by the source can be removed. The material you're adding is not in the sources you've provided. It can therefore be removed. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Are you bored because of some lock down and trolling or something? I don't see why else you'd make such of an effort (2 AN threads and one help desk one) to draw attention to the fact you are going around adding names to the article [31] which were mentioned no where in the ref you provided [32] and warned because of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It must be some sort of trolling because I cannot find any evidence of the name being added ever writing anything or even existing. The fact that the IP has started multiple threads about it leads to be believe they are just trying to waste our time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought Wikipedia is free ,and everyone can participate. This screenwriter (Eve) is simply shadowed by other people , involved in her films. I want to add her credits , but Juliete and Wallyfromdilbert are deleting everything good I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not paying attention. All material added to wikipedia must be verifiable in a published source. This content cannot be added unless it is verifiable by looking in a published source that states she is the screenwriter. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Balkan matters at Bookocide in Croatia

    Those of you active in Balkan matters, and experienced with WP:BALKANS, please have a look at Talk:Bookocide_in_Croatia#This_is_trolling. That section title is already ridiculous, and the first post, "...obscure enough, or simply invented completely, and nobody suspect that such junk could exist in the project at all... referenced claptrap...", indicates that we are dealing with a problematic issue. That the article isn't made up or some propaganda thing is established well enough, even in that discussion (look at the sourcing provided by Antidiskriminator), and the editor who started it just posted a very long screed whose purpose (and, frankly, content) is just not clear to me. But it's not helpful. I have a few things to do right now and frankly I don't know what to do with this editor--I'm actually thinking that a partial block from that article is a possible outcome, if the editor thinks that what they're doing is OK. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, what certainly should be an outcome here is banning the author of the article in question, User:Antidiskriminator. The person who complained about the article may well have missed the mark, but it's obvious that the article as it stands is a ridiculously POV-laden piece of junk editing, full of unreliable or blatantly distorted sourcing. The title alone is a crime against the English language (needless to say, it's a complete invention by the article's author). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my area of knowledge, but a two minute Google search easily established that the title is not "a complete invention by the article's author". The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. An example of an RS discussing the topic in English:[33] Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it "would" literally translate as that, if English worked that way, which it doesn't, and none of the reliable sources use this (included the one you just cited, which is just another review of the single Serbocroatian study that has dealt with the issue). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fut.Perf., I really don't give a flying fuck about the title, but I do care for the topic. I also don't care much for Antidiskriminator, who likes to come by my talk page to bait me, but again, the topic is real enough. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't say anything about the topic not being real. Even though I'm not convinced it's really one topic; it may be either two topics conflated (illegitimately, because the sources take care to distinguish them), or a part of what is a single larger topic illegitimately factored out. But that's not really the point; the point is that the quality of the tendentious POV writing by Antidiskriminator is so crass and so obvious that it should earn him an immediate ban for disruptive editing, on the evidence of a mere cursory reading of the article. I honestly cannot understand how any competent administrator could possibly spend a minute reading the article and not immediately come to conclusion of pulling the ARBMAC trigger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, recent

    The article is now at DRV. Closing this before the OP's passive-aggressive responses end up getting them sanctioned. Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OP blocked as a CU-confirmed sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is a noticeboard on here as well as this pg. The fact that I was told there is zero chance that a deletion review would be successful is indicative of the problem or occurrence. Angelina Green is a teenager. There seem to be biases on this site against AGT (America's Got Talent) artists, young performers in general especially new ones, golden buzzer artists on the program, artists from other tv shows or sitcoms for example, and other personalities in business and entertainment. Further "vendettas" in a sense are held, users piggyback on others' misshapen or formed ideas. They track, "spy" using the watch functions on the site, and seek to keep people's names and art unmentioned. Said users don't even know how to properly edit, often are involved in new page patrols and the like. Something should also be done about the ineptitude of admins closing and evaluating AfDs correctly. Finally the throwing out of votes in AfD cases is improperly done and used incorrectly. That's not to say that sometimes it should be utilized. Thanks. Momentum7 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what "America's Got Talent" is or what a "golden buzzer" is. But don't give up hope. We've got an article on Gene Gene the Dancing Machine, so maybe you can have an article some day, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Supposedly Wiki is your friend, look up AGT and the buzzer. While you're at it look at how many AGT contestants have articles on here and how many won a golden buzzer. Further you could research GGtDM. No one tried to delete his page. Also explain how Wikipedia is full of non-serious strange people who can't be reasoned with. Momentum7 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is clearly in response to this discussion on @78.26:'s talk page. You have been told the proper place to proceed is WP:DRV, which is correct. This is not the place to hash out a page deletion, and should promptly be closed as such. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the "ineptitude of admins" is a reference to my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelina Green (2nd nomination). SpinningSpark 07:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good close, weeding out the IDLI-ADTs is something too often overlooked. By the way, has anyone asked User:Momentum7 to clarify their conflict of interest regarding the article subject? serial # 10:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would make a good collective noun, "an ineptitude of admins" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See? Classic tricks going on here, look. Now look away, nothing to see here. We're all carny workers and this is a sideshow. Now to get back to things. Some of you aren't taking much seriously. There are biases going on. Sometimes when editors are shown that they are less than civil they use Wiki-speak and say that they didn't mean anything by it. They don't really keep track. Tell that to the people that follow topics for a few years. It's not one teenager that performs for huge audiences being slighted. This happens all over the site. Momentum7 (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you're not suggesting that non-notable subjects are being deleted all over the site? You are? Great news, thanks :) serial # 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not thoughtful or well expressed dialogue. One of the posters on here doesn't even know what show AGT is let alone the golden buzzer. I am resisting getting drawn into your charade. We aren't talking about one tv show. The biased opinions on here are affecting many individuals and bands. It is a sport, new page patrollers are sometimes wacko. Momentum7 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll talk in basic terms for you not "wiki-speak". She's not notable. Period. We have guidelines that an individual needs to meet to warrant an article, she doesn't meet them. When she DOES meet them, by all means come back and repost an article about her. Just being on a national TV show doesn't warrant an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RickinBaltimore: Notwithstanding your avoidance of Wikispeak, their replies further down suggest that the WP:IDHT is strong in this one. serial # 13:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what I mean, you are quite possibly wrong. Not an expert. Do you know a 45 from a 78? That's another thing why do admins talk about things they don't know about? Maybe stick to topics you do know? Tell me which artists won a golden buzzer and then won the show in reference? Also tell me why tv, entertainment, this show, other performers, and in particular young performers are being discriminated against? Younger performers deserve coverage and have rights. Momentum7 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure why it went to AfD to be honest, as it was (bar a couple of words) exactly the same as the version deleted by the first AfD and should simply hve been deleted G4, as it already had been once. Momentum7 is welcome to take this to DRV, but the second AfD was closed completely correctly and so I don't really see much point to it. Incidentally, though possibly irrelevantly, the article was also created by the sock of a banned user. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Wikipedia has minimum notability requirements for musicians and performers, and just appearing on a TV show is not sufficient (nor is getting a golden buzzer - and yes, I do know what that is). Whether something is deleted is decided by consensus, and admins can not overrule a consensus. As for the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelina Green (2nd nomination), in my opinion it is correct. A consensus is based on the policy-based arguments made, not on the number of votes. Those who believed the article should be deleted made valid policy-based arguments (based on notability policy). Those who argued to keep it did not offer any policy-based reasoning whatsoever (and they appear to be single purpose editors with no other contribitions), and thus were correctly discounted. The closing admin judged the consensus correctly. If you disagree with the close and wish to contest it, you need to make a request at WP:Deletion review. Coming here and hurling insults around will not get that article undeleted, but it might get you sanctioned if you continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not an admin. Sanction yourself? Momentum7 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus. The very definition of consensus is unanimous. Consensus is unanimous. That's not the case. You are incorrect Momentum7 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he is an admin, and consensus does not have to be unanimous. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Here's the thing: you refer to "expertise", Momentum7, but what is relevant here is in fact knowledge of Wikipedia and how this specific web based encyclopedia works. That's what administrators (such as Boing! said Zebedee) have to demonstrate, and that is the only thing they should consider when acting in the capacity as administrators (such as when closing an AfD discussion). You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you are not quite clear on some important concepts, such as how consensus works ("consensus" is not synonymous with "unanimous" outside Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia it has a specific definition), or the fact that whether someone "deserves coverage" is never a consideration – Wikipedia can only take into account already existing coverage. Again, you are free to seek to overturn the decision at WP:DRV, but doing so without first understanding exactly which policies were involved in the closing will almost certainly mean that you won't be successful. --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not kindness which you feature prominently. Seeing that you have a PhD one would think you could be reasoned with. Explain to me how I can show you bias and you won't see it. Momentum7 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I won't be kind here. Drop the stick and take this to deletion review to have this looked at there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Have done so, requesting you to stay out of it since you seem to have piggybacked off a non-admin post. RiB, if deletion review is not conducted properly and users are more interested in intrigue, arguing without points, and not addressing biases and other topics expressed then this site is hopeless. Personal opinion, most of you appear to not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Momentum7 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like there may have been some sockpuppetry going on in that AfD discussion, too. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that the OP was a CU confirmed sock. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unblock appeal

    Overturn and unblock clear enough. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am appealing the block[34] which I received for "repeatedly violating [my] interaction ban after warnings". The cited violations occurred while I was appealing and asking for clarification on the talk page of the administrator who imposed the IBAN.[35] In my appeal and clarification requests I had repeatedly asked that my IBAN be modified from a one-way IBAN to a two-way IBAN. In order to request this change it was necessary for me to discuss the other editor. The administrator repeatedly stated that the other editor was not responsible for my behavior, and that trying to convince them otherwise is not covered by WP:BANEX. I was not claiming that the other editor was responsible for my behavior; I was asking that my IBAN be modified to two-way because the other editor was also at fault (and due to the admin's procedural errors). The administrator did not state that it was improper to discuss the other editor in the context of this request; the administrator did not follow WP:ADMINACCT by answering my specific requests for clarification, instead the administrator repeatedly told me that the other editor was not responsible for my conduct, something I never claimed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC) copied from User talk:Kolya Butternut per request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Overturn and unblock - I'm glad Wugs became an admin and respect them a lot but I've been watching this unfold and I think it was a pretty bad 1-way IBAN and a pretty bad block. I also think Yamla's unblock decline was rather unhelpful. The background is simple: a week or so ago KB was partially blocked from an article by bradv for partially reinstating a bold addition, violating 1RR. There was a long conversation with many editors on brad's talk page discussing what counts as a revert, etc. Specifico lobbied very hard on Brad's talk page for KB to be TBANed completely.
      Next, Specifico did the same thing: violate 1RR. This was pointed out to Specifico on his talk page and they were asked to self-revert. They didn't. Brad was pinged; the question was asked-by KB and others-why Specifico was being treated differently than KB. Specifico hasn't edited since this happened (May 10). Brad didn't partially block Specifico like he did KB. Then Wugs came in-who I think has not been involved before in this-and partially blocked Specifico from the article and unilaterally gave KB a 1-way IBAN against Specifico. KB went to Wugs' talk page and lobbied for it to be 2-way. Wugs blocked KB (full block) for that, saying it's a violation of the 1-way IBAN (it's not). Yamla declined KB's unblock request because Yamla didn't think the chance of success was high enough (whatever that means). I think every single admin action in this little story I've described was improper. What should have happened is simple: KB should have been given a chance to self revert before being partially blocked. Specifico should have been treated the same by brad as KB was and should have been pblocked also, without a bunch of editors claiming hypocrisy for a week. No IBAN was necessary at all, and asking for it to be 2-way on the issuing admin's talk page is not a violation of the 1-way; BANEX is clear about appeals. So I think KB should be unblocked and the IBAN rescinded. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn per Levivich. I was involved in the previous discussions and do not find it helpful when the standards are not uniformly enforced. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn per Levivich and trout to all admins involved. 1-way IBANs are pointless. Two way or no way.--v/r - TP 17:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked into the further history of this, but must point out that lobbying for the other editor to also have an interaction ban clearly violates WP:IBAN, which says, "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: [...] make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly", and was linked in the initial edit on the plaintiff's talk page informing them of the ban, so the statement at User talk:Kolya Butternut saying, "I was not given a blanket instruction not to discuss the other editor's conduct, and I was not told not to ask for a ban on the other editor" is incorrect, as is Levivich's, "(it's not)". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with that interpretation. Asking the issuing admin to issue a 2-way IBAN instead of a 1-way IBAN is a form of appeal. It would be nonsensical to treat this as a violation of the 1-way IBAN. If we treated it as such, then nobody subject to a 1-way IBAN could ever request that it be turned into a 2-way IBAN. This of course isn't how it works here. There are many instances, for example, of someone asking for a 2-way to be turned into a 1-way, and this is not considered a violation of the 2-way. BANEX is clear that appeals of sanctions do not violate the sanction. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see what interpretation is needed here. The banning policy says what I said it says very clearly. This editor is perfectly entitled to ask questions about their own ban, but asking for the other editor to be banned is obviously a violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Phil Bridger, interpretation isn't needed because asking to change a 1-way ban that you have with another editor to a 2-way ban is discussing the ban itself and is an attempt to appeal the ban as it is being enforced. Nihlus 20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn and unblock looks like a no brainer. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There seems to be some misrepresentation above. It is not true that Kolya merely went to Wugapodes to ask about the iban or to request turning it into a 2-way iban. The first comment didn't even mention the iban, but said [of the person Kolya has an iban regarding]: "his comments on his talk page are evidence of incivility in the form of civil POV-pushing, particularly WP:CIVILITY 2.(d) lying." Wugapodes then explained that these messages could be an iban violation and advised dropping the stick. No sticks were dropped, and so it escalated. I'm not weighing in one way or the other as to whether a block was merited or whether the iban should be there or whether it should be 2-way. I'm only commenting because to read this section you'd get a different idea of what happened than if you look at the section on Wugapodes' talk page. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn and unblock - I'd propose unblocking now, since this will all eventually become moot if the block expires. Unblock because an interaction ban should not remove of the right to seek relief from actions taken by the other editor, so long as such requests are made in good faith. Given the time frame, I am inclined to see the talk page comments in that light, even those not directly seeking a change of the IBAN. Overturn, because 1-way interaction bans are never justified. I haven't investigated sufficiently to have a position on whether no interaction ban, a two way interaction ban, or a full ban would be most appropriate. Prodego talk 18:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sanctioning admin note Since this has also come to include a discussion on the IBAN itself, I want to note that the conduct I sanctioned Kolya for is not an isolated incident but a long term pattern. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#Personal_attacks SchroCat advised her to not insult other editors, and to report concerns at the appropriate venue; she doubled down and made clear she was trying to carry on a personal rather than content dispute with Betty Logan. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#WP:HOUND Flyer22 Reborn raised concerns with multiple diffs that Kolya was wikihounding them, to which Cullen328 said I advise you to take that editor's talk page off your watchlist. That would be to your benefit, in my opinion, since you are clearly displaying some hounding tendencies. This is not a new pattern, and it is clear to me that neither Kolya's interactions with SPECIFICO nor the editing environment at Joe Biden would improve without intervention. Concerns about this pattern of behavior have been raised multiple times, by multiple editors, and about multiple targets, so in considering the IBAN, I suggest editors look at Kolya's pattern of conduct over the last few months and consider whether she will engage collaboratively without it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn and unblock - A 1-way IBAN for an alleged long term pattern of attacks is an odd way of handling things. 1-way IBANs are also never a good idea, as demonstrated here. Finally, blocking someone trying to discuss and appeal their IBAN is unconscionable. Nihlus 20:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uninvolved admin, or advice

    Linn C Doyle (talk · contribs) blocked by Number 57 (talk · contribs)

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

    Hi all. A minor edit war has occurred over this article, where Linn C Doyle (talk · contribs) and I have disagreed over a content addition. I'm looking for an uninvolved administrator to handle the issue (or to give advice on how to proceed), since I am the article's creator. A third opinion has been provided here, but his/her recommendation was not accepted by Linn C Doyle. Linn C Doyle's latest reversion was accompanied by this this comment, but I don't feel comfortable intervening further. Should this conflict be handled via page protection, to force talk-page discussion? Or should additional opinions be invited? Or discussed at greater length elsewhere? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As you got a third opinion on the talk page that agreed the content should not be reinstated, and Linn C Doyle continued to revert it into the article, I have blocked her from editing the article for two weeks. Number 57 20:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deleting JavaScript pages

    Pages deleted RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, could an admin please kindly delete the following pages under CSD U1 User:Krett12/common.js User:Krett12/twinkleoptions.js , as CSD templates may not be applied to JavaScript pages. Thanks. Krett12 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    revdel request

    Please RD3 the IP edits from 1 and 2, and both edit summaries. Further explanation here. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 06:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Illegitimate Barrister no response to ANI disruptive editing

    I posted on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) on 13 May 2020 User:Illegitimate Barrister Infobox template codes/ parameters in articles - it has been archived. MSGJ responded that "The editor should take responsibility for their actions. When it is explained to them why their actions are disruptive, it is their duty to revert these edits". An ANI Notice had been posted on the editors talk page on 13 May Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Infoboxes: new section). The editor has been editing since 13 May and hasn't reverted either the infobox templates or the infobox changes in the articles.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Article about a biological species/genus: renaming it from Linnaean name to English name if that species is the only species in its genus

    • See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=957148417 :: if an article is about a biological genus which has only one species: a user is asking for such articles to be renamed from the Linnaean Latin name to an English name, with the reasoning "Use the common name for the only species in a monotypic grouping to avoid using genus name". That policy about monotypic genera :: is it established practice? I know that the species name should be omitted, leaving only the generic Latin name, but that is different from the user in question's requests. If there needs to be an article G about that genus and a separate article S about that species, surely (to take the first example listed at that edit-link), the article about the genus can be named Zaclistius and the article about the species can be named Zaclistius elevatus, if there is a situation that prevents all the information about that genus and that species from being all in one same article. What happens if the species/genus has no vernacular name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I generally favour using common names, if they're well established and unambiguous, per wider policy. In general though, it's probably best to treat such cases as controversial and subject to a full RM discussion and not just wave them through at WP:RMTR, as each case would be considered on its own merits.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. The request is in line with what we normally do with monotypic genera: if there is an established common name for the species, put the article under that and redirect genus there, otherwise put article under genus name and redirect species names there (common and scientific). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Asqueladd being problematical (declined by reporter user)

    Already being discussed at WP:ANI#Picklespitlizyr. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User is in an obvious bias in her country (evidence) article ([36] [37], showing personal conduct difficulties, more, more, [38]), please take advice. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: Pickespitlizyr has been reported here per WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:CIV. The report above these lines is a case of WP:GAMING--Asqueladd (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is same your "report" link. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure of what kind of "problematical" "evidence" of "bias" is changing "15 Day" by "15 May".--Asqueladd (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I remove my report, whole it probably are by medical causes. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bad edits

    Stale report, use WP:AIV if the issue resumes. ST47 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    According to the edit history of this ip[1], he/she seems to make unhelpful and disruptive edits including this harmful encouragement for other editors to commit suicide by telling them to "just do it"[2]. 194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to be a public or shared computer at a school or other educational facility. They haven't made such edits too recently, but if they do again, it can be blocked. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In most cases I would agree with your conclusion if it was just a regular case of vandalism, but I think an exception should be made here because of the addition of promoting harm. Someone could read and possible be tempted or convinced into killing or really badly hurting themselves trying. Basically, that damaging suggestion could have lead to someone actually acting that out. I recommend an immediate infinite ban.194.247.60.2 (talk)
    That stupid and unpleasant edit was very sensibly reverted back on 28 March 2020 by Hellknowz. Whilst a warning at the time could have been issued (and a block made if such edits continued) this was clearly a silly one-off edit by a schoolkid on an educational network, and there's really nothing that needs doing now, two months later. When concerned about an editor's motives, just add them to your watchlist and report if disruptive or unpleasant editing continues. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.4.154.7
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&oldid=944281440
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Trying to avert edit war with IP user on two articles

    An IP user is continually editing two articles, altering information so that it no longer matches the cited references. The articles are List of epidemics and 2017–18 United States flu season. At issue is the range for the death toll, which is provided by two CDC references as between 46,000 and 95,000. The IP user is editing the upper limit to 80,000. One of his first edits shows this as the reason "The CDC says the upper range limit for deaths was 80,000. Someone keeps changing it to 95,000 and no source supports that," but it's clear that he didn't read the references in question, he's not looking at the comments in the revision history (or he would see that I changed and explained why), he's not looking at the article talk pages, and he's not looking at his own talk page (where I tried to leave a comment in the vain hope that he would see it. The CDC references in question are here and here (they are the only CDC references given that show estimates for the death toll); The CDC's estimate for the death toll range that season is between 46,404 and 94,987. I have no idea where he's getting the idea that the upper limit is 80,000 (it's nowhere in either of those references). I want to adhere to guidelines per WP:EW, but I don't know what to do next because we have no way of communicating with this person. Please help. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have partially blocked the /64. They do cite a CDC source as :5B73 (unlike more recently as :C938), but unless I'm missing something, the data still seems to align with Global Cerebral Ischemia's upper limit of 95,000 rather than the IP's 80,000. Either way, the IP is encouraged to engage in actual discussion. Repeating the same sentence while edit warring in multiple articles is obviously counter-productive. El_C 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help! I think I know the reason for the misunderstanding, but unfortunately it seems the IP editor is oblivious to the talk pages. Oh well. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a fundamental issue with IPv6s that a single person is often allocated an entire /64 range, and may switch within that range dynamically. That makes the talk pages of IPv6s a needle in a haystack (more like a needle in a pile of hay the size of a mountain), so the chance of being able to leave a message that is actually seen is vanishingly small. In addition, a mobile user may be completely unaware of the existence of any talk pages. It's frustrating that the only tool we have for attracting the attention of an IPv6 user's entire range is a (partial) block, and maybe we need to think about what other solutions could be developed. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Xanthi Carnival

    Not a matter that requires admin attention. ST47 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I created this article more than 90 days ago and as this page refers, new articles older than 90 days get indexed automatically, but this doesn't seem to be happening. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnslps (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We have no control over when Google indexes our articles. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Crosswiki abuse

    Talk page semi-protected. creffett (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Please protect User talk:WikiBayer --WikiBayer (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis Brown m:Global sysops are not sysops everywhere, only on projects which have opted in and only within a subset of those that meet activity criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thank you for that concise explanation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination)

    Caned by User:ST47. (non-admin closure) serial # 09:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Dear Wikipedia administrators, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination) - please see this, this was nominated by a sock and this was edited by so many IP and vandals, please close the nomination immediately (6 days have passed since the nomination). ChokLador (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reasonably certain that this user is a sockpuppet of WMF-banned User:Bishal Khan. ST47 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template:Flagicon

    Not our circus. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I wasn't sure where to post this, I just wanted to put this out there, I asked at the beginning of March on the talk page there if we could have a complete list of all the country names, with the short three letter code as a reference guide to be added into the template description. I was wondering if there is a template editor around who could add that for the community. It would be much appreciated by me for sure. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Govvy, this isn't an admin issue - I would suggest putting links to the discussion at WT:WPT or WP:VPT if you're not getting discussion at {{flagicon}}. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kendrick7

    It should not be necessary to explain to experienced editors how BLP works. Egregious violations should be reported to the oversight team. – bradv🍁 01:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is an edit filter to prevent addition of the name of the supposed Ukraine whistleblower, including preventing links to Rand Paul's speech naming them. Log hits are suppressed by WP:OVERSIGHT. It's filter 1033 (previously 1008).

    Kendrick7 is, or should be, aware of this, not least because he triggered the edit filter while restoring content added by an IP to Censorship of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He uploaded the content of Rand Paul's statement, including the name, to Wikisource. He also removed the redaction of the name from another article uploaded by The Devil's Advocate there (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kendrick7).

    He pipe linked the text [Rand Paul] criticized YouTube to the text of Paul's statement on Wikisource, added a link to the opriginal floor speech, and restored the redacted content at Wikisource. So: two links to Wikisource which both included the name, in both cases with the name specifically included by Kendrick7. He also added or restored links to Paul's Senate page with the statement including the name, and to the PDF of the congressional record of the original speech including the name.

    2020-05-18T21:14:37 - restore removed content at Censorship of Google
    2020-05-18T21:26:32 - remove redactions from original Wikisource document
    2020-05-18T21:34:58‎ - create new Wikisource document
    2020-05-18T21:38:38 - edit filter hit when attempting to add both Wikisource links (original Wikisource link is filtered)
    2020-05-18T21:39:20 - add link to new Wikisource file

    Given that the content of the web links is word for word identical to the content of the Wikisource documents that Kendrick7 uploaded / un-redacted, it's really hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate effort to publicise the alleged whistleblower's name. Four separate links to only two original sources, both by Rand Paul, both naming the alleged whistleblower in the context of content addition discussing Google removing the content because, as the third-party source included for this content says: "The whistleblower's identity has not been revealed or verified publicly" (it goes on to add "which is why The Courier Journal and USA TODAY are not publishing the person's alleged name or Paul's question").

    Withholding the name appears to be the position of all reputable media, and my reading of the numerous debates where this has been discussed (notably Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) is that Wikipedia should not include it until after it is in reliable independent secondary sources.

    I understand that Kendrick7 is probably motivated by a dislike of "censorship" (this comes out in other edits) but using WMF resources to do something that, as the content itself makes clear, reputable sources are explicitly not doing, seems extremely ill-judged to me. I would ask that an uninvolved admin give Kendrick7 a warning not to repeat this. Guy (help!) 09:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Guy, I wouldn't have thought that people, particularly established editors, were still engaging on this particular issue. I can hardly call myself uninvolved here since I have been on this tip since the beginning, but then again, this is such an obvious BLP violation that any admin should block for this--if not retroactively, then the next time they pull a stunt like this. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Drmies, I'm involved too (I created the first version of the edit filter) and I am trying to AGF here, but as you say it's pretty difficult. Guy (help!) 20:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      JzG, Rand Paul's statement was a statement made by a Senator and then censored by Google. He didn't put it in the Ukraine article. I think it raises an interesting question considering that Wikipedia isn't censored and Google censored a US Senator. Wikisource has transcripts of speeches or videos and if a Senator made a speech and it's available on the .gov server for all to see and view, is it really not publicly available anyway? Wikisource's role is to be a source for speeches. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, well done for entirely missing the point. Guy (help!) 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      JzG, No, I didn't. Wikisource's job is to transcribe speeches of Senators and the article of censorship of Google is to showcase censorship at Google. Your job is to be condescending towards anyone who doesn't think like you. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, and you willl note that this is about Wikipedia not Wikisource, though in passing you will also note that a Wikisource admin has redacted the documents there, in one case reversing Kendrick7's edit. And no, Wikisource's job is not "to transcribe speeches of Senators" - the Rand Paul speeches are included, but most speeches are not. This is a deliberate act first by TDA (who you will recall is banned here) and hten by Kendrick7, to publiciose a name that responsiblke sources are excluding. Guy (help!) 14:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      JzG, While the media may be censoring the name, it is widely known, and Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of censoring, especially a US Senator's speech. Wikipedia isn't censored. Paul's speech may be important because it was censored by Google, therefore it does make sense for Wikisource to include it. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, Wikipedia includes only that which is covered in reliable independent sources. "The whistleblower's identity has not been revealed or verified publicly, which is why The Courier Journal and USA TODAY are not publishing the person's alleged name or Paul's question"
      This is pretty much as WP:BLP as it gets. Guy (help!) 18:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, "Google censored a US Senator"--that sounds a pretty dramatic, and NOW WE ARE CENSORING A SENATOR TOO??? *clutches pearls* Sir Joseph, as much as you seem to want to make a free speech issue out of this, admins (the people you claim are, by profession, here to be condescending to you) here seem determined to consider the senator's outing of a whistleblower to be a violation of our own rules. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Drmies, just to clarify, he didn't out a whistleblower. He named a couple of names and asked two questions. Outing a whistleblower is a crime, and you just violated BLP by claiming Paul violated a crime. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kendrick7 hasn't edited since this thread opened, so may not be aware of it. It would be helpful to see if they respond before acting, but on the evidence I'm willing to give them a warning for a BLP violation. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      RexxS, thanks, please do. Guy (help!) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @JzG and Drmies: I've given a warning. I'm sorry I'm not aware of any backstory, but does this fall under the auspices of WP:AC/DS, and if so, should it be logged somewhere? --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Definitely falls under AP2, of which I see they've received notice. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Primefac, it does, and also the BLP case. Hopefully the warning will be heeded. Guy (help!) 18:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll log it as a warning at WP:AELOG/2020 under AP2 for now. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was completely unaware of any edit filter, and was surprised that adding a link to our sister project Wikisource triggered it. I did verify that a ref I added months ago to Paul's full speech, the one Google/YouTube/JzG has been censoring, on Congress.Gov was still present at Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump#Acquittal (currently ref #168), which is why I couldn't imagine restoring a deleted reference to Paul's comments about YouTube on Senate.gov would violate any ArbCom sanctions. I admit to having some dealing with Guy on this topic before, but I thought it was some weird pet obsession of his. I don't see any valid reason not to restore this primary source. What do this AP2 sanctions say, and how are they relevant to all this? -- Kendrick7talk 20:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For avoidance of doubt, I based my warning on WP:AC/DS #guide.expect, as authorised by WP:ARBAPDS and arguably WP:NEWBLPBAN. Of course, the standard WP:BLP would certainly be relevant as well, if a normal, rather than discretionary, sanction were to be considered in the future. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kendrick7, It is almost axiomatic that any claim of censorship on Wikipedia is indicative of POV-pushing. And so it is here. This is not "censorship", it's following the sources. Example, fomr the source cited in that content: "The whistleblower's identity has not been revealed or verified publicly, which is why The Courier Journal and USA TODAY are not publishing the person's alleged name or Paul's question" (emphasis added).
    They don't, so we don't. That's how Wikipedia has always worked. Guy (help!) 21:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Hear, hear! Yes! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The only person's name included in my edit was Ron Paul's, @JzG:. You might have even noticed with your hawk-like all seeing eyes, that when I put most of the information back that the IP editor added originally (which I only noticed had been entirely removed as I was adding information about different YouTube censorship), I left one or more names out. But the idea that we can't link to primary government sources which happen to mention the names of certain government officials seems quite absurd, and such links already exist on the Impeachment article -- I seem to recall you weren't happy about that either, but I suppose you lost that argument at some point. As such, I don't believe your position has any general consensus, and you could certainly have taken the opportunity to discuss any of this with me before dragging this whole thing to AN/I. -- Kendrick7talk 21:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kendrick7, dude, you removed the redactions in the Wikisource document and would have linked it in the article if the edit filter hadn't stopped you. You also added the second Paul document to Wikisource, complete with the name. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Guy (help!) 22:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, if you have complaints about the primary sources I add or repair on WP:Wikisource, that's fine, but don't WP:FORUMSHOP those complaints over here, and act like Wikipedia's rules and Wikisource's rules regarding content are remotely the same — most obviously, WP:SECONDARY doesn't apply to Wikisource. -- Kendrick7talk 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kendrick7, the complaint here is about your edits here, which linked (or attempted to link) two instances each of two documents that include the name of the conjectured whistleblower, something that reliable sources do not do, in the context of article content describing the way that responsible sources have redacted this information. And it wasn't an accident, because you removed the redactions on Wikisource.
    I assumed good faith. You have done a fine job here of proving me wrong. And with that I think we are done. Guy (help!) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, JzG. Very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Special:ContentTranslation

    I can't use translation tools. Please take a look at the matter. I have the Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Extended confirmed users. My Number of edits:730. Thanks-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WMF Village Pump

    The new Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) is up and going. So far I think it has been a hub for useful discussion and notification. A WMF staffer recently replied to one thread asking someone to post on meta so that more people can read it and participate. While that statement is true today it doesn't have to be. I hope more people will join me in watchlisting, visiting, and participating at the WMF Village Pump. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of a page-specific general sanction

    The article Coronavirus disease 2019 is subject to the community-imposed Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019.

    I recently checked through the sourcing and found examples of content sourced to preprints. The applicable sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS clearly states "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge". The preprints at https://www.medrxiv.org/ carry this warning:

    Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

    I maintain that they don't even meet our criteria for reliable sourcing, let alone the higher standard of MEDRS.

    However, when I attempted to remove one of the preprints, it was immediately reinserted by another editor. The article has developed a culture of using news media and unreliable sources for medical content in an attempt to keep up with breaking news. That has lead to poorly-sourced, unreliable information being inserted into our article, despite it being under general sanctions.

    On 11 May, I decided that the article needed a specific general sanction prohibiting editors from adding preprints as sources for content, so I made clear my intention on the talk page and received support from admins Boing! said Zebedee and Doc James, with Ymblanter confirming the decision several days later. Consequently on 12 May, I followed the requirements to add an edit notice and talk page notice notifying editors of the prohibition, and I logged it at WP:GS/COVID19 #Log of administrative actions.

    There was vocal opposition from a handful of editors very active on the article, each of whom criticised me for insisting on applying MEDRS. This is not a content dispute; it is a simple application of a project-wide sourcing standard.

    I have not had to sanction any editor for breaching the prohibition, but when I warned Almaty that if they were "going to deliberately breach MEDRS at the COVID-19 article, then I will topic ban you again from the area to prevent disruption", they decided to raise a case at WP:ANI #I am being inappropriately threatened with general sanctions for COVID-19 questioning whether I could, and accusing me of being WP:INVOLVED. I have indeed made numerous "minor or obvious edits" to the article, but in all good faith, I do not believe that they show any CoI or bias beyond my desire to maintain sourcing standards.

    Therefore I'd like independent admins to review (1) the specific restriction "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article" and (2) rule on whether my edits to the article rise to the level of being involved as defined at Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins, which I have always taken to apply to admins involved in content disputes, not to admins attempting to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks for any insights. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I condone both the GS application and the warning issued to the editor. The specific restriction is simply an application of already existing policy. Your introduction of the restriction and your edits on the page do not make you WP:INVOLVED. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." None of that applies to this situation. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse Rexx's restriction. However, Rexx has clearly weighed in, in my view, on the editorial content of the article - the RfC alone is enough for me so we don't need to debate whether his reverts qualify under the exception and is thus clearly and unambiguously INVOLVED in this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into RexxS's involvement but, that aside, may I suggest that the GS be modified to "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article without first establishing clear consensus for inclusion on the talkpage". The point being that there may be (hypothetical) circumstances under which an important result is released as a pre-print/self-published given the urgency of its findings, be widely discussed by various health-authorities, influence actual policy and medical practice etc, and yet be uncitable on wikipedia due to a blanket ban that prevents considered discussion of the particulars. Lets leave room for the exceptions like the Imperial College reports, which are (afaik) self-published, not independently peer-reviewed etc but are (correctly IMO) cited in wikipedia articles. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare: I'm not averse to amendments of the specific restriction, but I'm not convinced that it's necessary. Surely we would want to cite the conclusions of the various health-authorities as secondary sources (per MEDRS), rather than the primary source, especially in its preprint form? --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The restriction is reasonable and so is Abecedare's suggestion. But admins should not be admin-ning a page they are involved editorially, and I agree with Barkeep49 that you are involved with respect to the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the restrictions are fine for the page. I also think your contributions to the article and discussions on the talk page have also made you involved. PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No concerns with Abecedare's addition. There could be a one off were the preprint would be reasonable in addition to other sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the restriction imposed by RexxS and the modification proposed by Abecedare. I see nothing here that would suggest to me that RexxS is too involved editorially with the article to act in an administrative capacity with respect to it. Sandstein 06:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully support the enforcing, by general sanctions, of WP:MEDRS on Covid-19 related articles, and the additional clarification that preprints are not MEDRS sources - they're not even WP:RS sources. SarahSV said it perfectly at ANI: "WP:MEDRS has strong consensus, probably the strongest of our guidelines. It means that Wikipedia can't be an early reporter of new medical information, which is frustrating, but it's how we've chosen to approach getting things right in the longer term."

      I do not support Abecedare's proposed modification, for the very reason RexxS cites in response (though I wouldn't necessarily oppose it if there were other examples of where we might want to propose that relaxation).

      RexxS is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED, as he has only been involved in this in an adminstrative capacity, not an editorial capacity.

      I support the warning RexxS gave to an editor for repeatedly challenging our MEDRS requirements (and RS requirements), which was reasonable and measured - you know who I mean, but I won't name them here as they appear to have courtesy vanished.

      If anyone wants to violate MEDRS and doesn't want RexxS to block sanction them, just drop me a line and I'll be happy to do it instead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Just as an additional comment, if anyone sees anything related to the General Sanctions over MEDRS in any Covid-19 pages and want an admin to look over it, please feel free to ping me and I'll be happy take a look. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the restriction, which amounts to stricter enforcement of existing guidelines, and it makes sense to do that on a high visibility page on an important topic. I do think that RexxS's edits have made them involved though, RexxS has made 53 edits to the article and 102 to the talk page, and most of these have nothing to do with admin actions. Hut 8.5 12:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Two things. Any number of edits to an article and/or its talk page, whether related to admin actions or not, do not automatically make an admin WP:INVOLVED in relation to the article in general - only potentially to those specific edits. WP:INVOLVED is often misunderstood, but it *does not* mean "Any admin who has made more than a certain number of edits to a page must not act in an admin capacity on that page". Secondly, for a breach of WP:INVOLVED, we'd need to see editorial disagreement about content with an editor against whom RexxS might then be proposing taking admin action, not merely upholding policy (and such upholding does not need to be actual admin actions). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Like RexxS threatening to sanctions someone after they had content disputes with them?[39] Also it is generally understood community consensus that when an administrator is extensively active on a page outside an administrative capacity, such as here, that they are considered involved and should not be taking administrative actions against someone they are in a content dispute with. You have to remember Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute which has easily been meet here. Given the reverts and disagreements on the talk page over content. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still not seeing any editorial conflicts or conflicts outside of the simple enforcement of WP:MEDRS. But it shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty more admins who can take GS actions when needed - at least one positive outcome of the ongoing pushback against the enforcement of MEDRS is that more admins will be aware of it now and will hopefully be watching. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, lots of admins watch that page and that is a good thing. It means when one is involved like RexxS they don't need to threaten to inappropriately use their admin bits. I disagree with the not seeing conflicts, there was him reverting them and the talk page disagreements. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Boing, I don't think it's quite as clean as you're describing here ("merely upholding policy" isn't a great standard because administrators have a wide range of opinions of what upholding policy is and the community should desire that diversity of thought). But you've given me a lot to think about as your overall point resonates with me to some degree so thanks for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that thought too. I think part of the problem is that RexxS has been pretty much single-handedly struggling to maintain compliance with MEDRS without much help from other admins (and I mean no disrespect to the many editors doing a great job of MEDRS, just that there's been a lack of admin support). So, I think we're coming to the best way to approach this, which is to get more admins prepared to help. (And, of course, to get the discussion more open, as we are doing here.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Mere numbers of edits don't make an admin involved, no, but those edits show a lot of back-and-forth between RexxS and other editors about issues like sourcing, which is usually understood as a content matter. These are fairly characterised as content disputes about sourcing, so I think RexxS is on somewhat shaky ground in using admin tools to create a sanction relating to sourcing on that page. Being right doesn't make an admin uninvolved. Hut 8.5 17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, Hut 8.5, but issues of editors deliberately breaching sourcing standards like MEDRS, despite being aware of them, are behavioural issues, not content ones, even more obviously so on a page under general sanctions. I'm simply not prepared to accept that warning editors about those breaches can reasonably be construed as making an admin involved, and I hope you're prepared to accept that you're on even shakier ground suggesting otherwise. We are experiencing a net loss of admins at a steady rate, and those prepared to insist on maintaining the quality of our articles are being spread ever thinner. Lowering the bar on being "involved" to include explaining our sourcing standards on article talk pages is not going to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No one is saying a warning makes you involved. Extensive involvement in the content side of an article makes you involved. It is not lowering the bar, that is where the bar has always been. PackMecEng (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      There you have it in a nutshell. That's just the usual misunderstanding of WP:INVOLVED which is designed to prevent administrators using their tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It was never the purpose of INVOLVED to hamstring an administrator who takes an interest in an article from upholding PAG. The act of editing an article does not create involvement, either. No amount – extensive or otherwise – of minor or obvious edits which do not show bias creates involvement, and fortunately the policy spells that out clearly. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah but you are wrong though. That is not how the policy is written or how the community generally interprets it. If you want to change policy I suggest you start a RFC on the subject. This is starting to get into WP:DEADHORSE territory at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Pull the other leg; you're just gaslighting now, as anybody who reads the policy can see. Fortunately, your misunderstanding of the policy caries no weight unless you manage to get it changed so that it no longer says "an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity". End of story. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:INVOLVED Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Which is what you have here. You claim minor and obvious edits which is just not the case by any reasonable measure. Even on ANI there were what 5 or 6 people all saying yup you are involved. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Doubling down on this is not a good look. But hey, you already agreed not to take admin action on that page so I guess it is rather a mute point huh? PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Now you're getting it. I have no problem in accepting that others can reasonably consider !voting in an RfC or reverting sufficient to make me involved, and I've said so. What I'm not prepared to accept is the proposition that any admin who is part of "back-and-forth ... about issues like sourcing" is involved because of that. If an admin explains how a particular source fails to meet MEDRS and another editor challenges it, that's not a content dispute, and there's no bar on the otherwise uninvolved admin taking administrative action with regard to that issue. Good grief, if your interpretation of exchanges on an article talk page were accurate, it would be impossible for an admin to caution or take any step less than sanctioning because any editor who argued about the caution would become immune to further admin action by that admin. Ridiculous. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ridiculous indeed! Good thing no one is making that argument. Ironic since you accused me, without evidence, of gaslighting just above. I think we are done here if that is the road you want to go down. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you

    I'd like to thank all of you who commented, and I appreciate the support and constructive advice. It seems pretty clear that the specific sanction could be usefully amended to Abecedare's suggestion, and I have no objection to any other admin making the change. I won't do that myself because I can see too many opinions considering me involved on the page. It's difficult to judge how one's own actions are perceived by others. For example, I saw edits like pointing out that I couldn't read the text in an image (my !vote at the RfC) as an obvious accessibility concern, not a content dispute, but I accept that others can reasonably hold the opposite view. Nevertheless, I don't think it is productive for me to attempt to act as an uninvolved admin at the article, and so I'll refrain from taking an administrative action there. Hopefully, it will be sufficient in future to refer any breaches of MEDRS (or threats to do so) to a clearly uninvolved admin, or to this noticeboard for action. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal.

    Rather than amending the sanctions notice itself, which has consensus and some precedent from ArbCom, I propose instead to add a section as follows:

    Application notes

    Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

    Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.

    Disruptive re-re-reopening of the same RM over and over again; needs another speedy close

    Talk:Syrian civil war#Requested move 19 May 2020 should be speedily closed. It presents no new arguments, evidence, or sourcing, only unhappiness at the earlier speedy closure of Talk:Syrian civil war#Talk:Syrian civil war#Requested move 30 January 2020 because it presented no new arguments, evidence, or sourcing and was just rehash of Talk:Syrian civil war#Requested move 15 January 2020. This is basically WP:FORUMSHOP / WP:TE / WP:WINNING via the WP:CIVILPOV tactic of "slow movewarring".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - User:SMcCandlish I've gone ahead and closed it and also stated further RMs should be done in January if need be, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    (non-admin closure) I have closed the discussion that I started. I will do a sockpuppet investigation when I am not busy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Any checkuser, Admin or editor who know about IP addresses can help me. I am not familiar with the internet. The first time I used internet was in 2016. I have a question about two IP ranges that I think they belong to the same person. There are lots of evidences, I brought some evidences here. These two IPs are from Pakistan lat. ≈ 31 long. ≈ 74 . I am not here to make a sockpuppet investigation. I am just asking if they truly belong to the same person. The reason why I am asking is because I know two editors who use these IP addresses and behave exactly the same.


    >119.154.163.30 edited Omer Shahid Hamid at 12:30, 15 August 2017
    >2 days later, 103.255.5.83 edited the same article
    >103.255.5.83 edited Persecution of Ahmadis trying to say that the Ahmadis are not Muslims
    >119.153.178.172 edited the same article and also tried to imply that Ahmadis are not Muslims. Also another IP from the same range (119.153.130.71) edited the same article trying to say that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
    >119.153.224.106 edited Beaconhouse National University
    >103.255.5.83 edited the same article
      • So what? IP editors are allowed here, and dynamic IP addresses- where the final few digits change- are reasonably common. There is nothing wrong with an anonymous editor using Wikipedia on two different computers, and at different times, such that they get assigned a number of different IP addresses. They're allowed to do that. It's only a problem if their actual edits are problematice, or they present themselves as different epople to rig our decision making processes. That would be equivalent to socking. I have no opinion on the edits you linked to. Reyk YO! 09:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am just asking. I have said the reason why I am asking. I believe that there is a registered editor who is using two accounts. In both accounts, he accidentally exposed his IP address. Both accounts pushing the same POV edits and making reverts in favour of the other.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:Drmies, what do you think? Do you agree that they belong to the same person?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two possibly inappropriate revision deletions of user names

    On Monday, 2 accounts were created calling a specific living person gay. This person, according to a sourced statement in his own article, is "the first openly LGBT person to be appointed as a minister in the Israeli government", making this statement not a BLP violation. The log entries are:

    Was the redaction appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.12.209 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, they were oversighted and we do not normally discuss or debate oversight actions at WP:AN as they are too privacy-sensitive for this board. BTW, I am fairly sure that such an username would be questionable even if it's not a BLP vio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the question, absolutely the redaction was appropriate. For the record, thank you for not linking to the individuals specifically, but rather to the logs (meaning I don't have to redact anything here). Primefac (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SOunds to me like an attack user name, without delving deeper. I agree, the redaction was appropriate. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial blocks

    Following my protecting of a template at template editor level, another editor has complained that the rest of the ordinary editors are "being punished" for the actions of an individual editor. He has pointed out that an alternative way to prevent the disruption which caused the implementation of the editing restriction exists - simply to block the editor in question from editing the template. I've never done a partial block, but accept that the complainant has a good point. There are no admin instructions listed at WP:PB, so I have no idea how to do this. Can someone explain the process please? Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeletion of File:HPIM0335.jpg

    Hi! This file was deleted as orphan but a copy is used in id.wiki (id:Berkas:HPIM0335.jpg. Could someone undelete so I can move to Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MGA73, Restored. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much Sphilbrick. Could you also undelete these 3:

    That is also in use in id.wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MGA73,  Done - Can I leave it to you to clear out the prod templates? S Philbrick(Talk) 20:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick thank you! Of course. Fixed and moved. I can see admins have lots to do. I might have thousands of files to move so I'm afraid I will add to the pile of work. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for deletion by article subject

    I've been contacted on my talkpage by someone claiming to be an article subject asking that their article be taken down (I'm being a bit cagey for a reason). I have no objection to doing this...unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm horribly rusty as to the process. What steps do I need to take? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have Twinkle, just choose the "XFD" option. If you don't, follow WP:AFDHOWTO. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: So it needs to go through AFD, then? OK - if that's the case I can take care of it shortly, thanks. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't see it meeting any of the speedy deletion criteria, so AFD is the way to go. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac, Ser Amantio, there really is a lot of coverage for this person, and a "normal" AfD would be likely to fail--that is, I'd argue tooth and nail for keeping the article. Ser Amantio, I don't know why you were cagey--I'm wondering if we shouldn't just send this to ArbCom, for instance (I just sent them a note, but Ser Amantio, it would be good if you did the same). Drmies (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies Call it habit - I spend so much time being cagey that it's become my default. :-) (Also, I didn't want to put a name here that would need to be scrubbed later, should it come to that.) I'll drop a note to Arbcom, then. I take your point about AFD, but if I were to put it up there I would make it clear that the article has been nominated expressly at the request of the subject. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you would; I've seen that done before. But let's go with ArbCom first, just to make sure. Thx! Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I sent the message off to ArbCom a little while ago, just after dinner. If I don't hear anything in a day or two I'll look at AFD. Thanks, all, for the assistance! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy I'm aware of that allows ArbCom to delete a long-standing article about a notable subject at the subject's request. This article has existed since 2010, meaning it has most likely been mirrored countless times, so no deletion could ever address any vague security concerns the subject might have, especially if the subject is a journalist and blogger who has extensively used their name in all kinds of publications. For subjects of marginal notability, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/WP:BIODEL already gives us guidance on how an AFD can be closed but even that policy presupposes that a deletion discussion takes place. Regards SoWhy 08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to SoWhy's assessment of the real life implications, to put it baldly, if the article subject is in danger is because he advocates from of the press in a country which has seen 47 journalists killed there in the last three years; not because they have a Wikipedia article.
    None of this, of course, and for the record, impugnes their personal courage or strength of character: they are truly in the caldron of freedom and an example to most of us in the "civilized" west. serial # 09:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, I know the article is pretty much a lock, but Ser Amantio asked a question and I answered :-) Primefac (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: et al.: I tend to agree. I tend to defer to the article subject's wishes in as many cases as possible. For what it's worth, ArbCom said no, so I will be opening an AFD later today on the subject. That being said, thanks, all, for the input - I was sure there was a procedure here, and I was equally sure that I'd overlook something if I went hunting for it myself. Which is usually the case for me, alas. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ser Amantio di Nicolao, for future reference, the policy you're looking for is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I've also invoked WP:BLPPRIVACY once or twice, usually when the subject says "please don't list my date of birth, it's not public information" at which point I've scrubbed the date and just given the year. creffett (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Creffett: Thanks very much. I'll mark it for future use - it comes up now and again, I find, though I don't encounter it often at all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange post on my talkpage

    Hello. Could someone have a look at User_talk:Rehman#Retiring_user please? Is there something I should be doing regarding this? They seems troubled by something, but I'm unsure on what to do... Rehman 03:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Email the address listed here? Could be a misreading or false alarm but just in case (esp. considering their age). Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll do that. Rehman 10:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting review of my unblock conditions

    Over the past two years, I have refrained from creating any redirects (if you were not to count a "soft" redirect/link to Meta-Wiki from my user space or the "automatic" redirects created by renaming pages) or templates or anything that may cause disruption to Wikipedia. I have become a rollbacker and a pending changes patroller within the past couple of months. I have went through my past contributions and tagged for deletion/discussion any pages I have created while learning how to edit properly. I have also taken the advice of Serial Number 54129 and decided to become more involved in the coding side (see this archive for reference) and have made several user scripts designed to enhance the experience of Wikipedia. Over the course of the past couple of years, I have gotten an understanding of the redirect policy and have only ever requested redirects be created from searching Wikipedia and seeing that the topic is available under a different name. (That would be one redirect back in 2019 and another request when I landed on a miscapitalized title that I just made a few hours ago.) I have participated more recently in RfDs to demonstrate my understanding of policy and how it applies to the encyclopedia and TfDs to demonstrate my understanding on what is a good "template". So I understand that 3.1415...4 is not a good redirect, nor is all this junk or this junk I created. I have worked on uncontentious improvements to the encyclopedia, and now I am here.

    For reference, my old username is UpsandDowns1234 and my full unblock conditions can be found here. It has been a pleasure making improvements on top of improvements. Aasim 07:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Provisional support - an initial look over seems to indicate that it would be reasonable to revoke all criteria (up to 9) still in force. A brief look by me didn't indicate issues. Unless someone else finds some troublesome behaviour, the timescale and positive actions since, seem to suggest removal of a fairly intense set of limits. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping, Awesome. I'm provisionally in favour also, ever since I discovered that you haven't been blocked since and nor does your talk page look like an illuminous fruit-salad :)
      To be fair, we ought to invite input from Iridescent who was as much involved as me and more involved than most. Good luck, serial # 08:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on this slightly. If we take the original unblock restrictions to be in the nature of a topic ban from various areas, then we would usually look elsewhere for signs of productive editing. Looking at their contributions to other projects, I see lots of activity and no alarm bells in the shape of talk page warnings, noticeboard alerts (particularly on meta and commons). A major issue that led to the original block—if Awesome will allow me to temporarily be a patronising ass—was the question of maturity: I see no reasons to question that any more. serial # 12:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, yep :) That was the main problem - I understood that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, but I did not recognize that my edits to userspace and template and project space were inappropriate. That was why I got a break from editing May 2017 and an infinite block (now lifted with conditions that I am appealing here) August 2017. That is no longer a problem - I am 18 now, compared to when I was 14-15 when I made the bad edits. Aasim 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Provisional support per NBB and Serial# above. I would suggest that Aasim generally follow the rules of condition 8 even if they're formally lifted (it's good advice for all of us, really) but my impression is that they've matured since the original ban and have an understanding of the relevant policies, so I'm willing to support lifting the formal restrictions assuming that nobody comes forth with especially damning issues. creffett (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: I don't think it's helpful to editors to carry the baggage of sanctions/restrictions that have long since served their purpose. I don't see any problem with lifting all of those. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support removal of all restrictions. They don't seem necessary anymore. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for closure

    There is a dreadful backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Are there no admins regularly working that page? SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I point out every time this is raised, most people ignore it because it primarily consists of one user listing RfCs he’s uninvolved with that may or may not actually need to be closed. It overwhelms the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are saying there. Is someone mass-adding requests? If so, filtering out the ones that were requested by someone who did not take part in the discussion may be the solution. Or just forbid drive-by requests altogether. Whatever, something really has to be done about it; this is an important board. If we don't have effective dispute resolution processes it will lead to more behavioral problems and come back to bite us in the ass from a different direction. SpinningSpark 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just did a quick headcount. By my count ~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined. I know Cunard says he has been trying to take on the concerns of the community about this, and I believe him, but from a numeric standpoint his requested account for the overwhelming majority of the backlogged discussions needing closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you agree that they should be closed as "not done" if there is no evidence that the participants wanted an admin close? I'm willing to go through a bunch of them and take the flak for that, but I'd to feel there was consensus to do that first. A lot of them are completely stale anyway. SpinningSpark 14:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I’d support responding to stale requests at ANRFC with {{nd}} if there’s no evidence those involved wanted a formal close. Might be worth letting others chime in, but I think decreasing the size would increase people’s willingness to respond to requests there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At some point, a realisation will sink in that certain requests are being deliberately ignored. If that happens, and making more requests be an obviously fruitless exercise, they might wither on the vine... ——Serial # 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial Number 54129, the problem is that this has been the subject of multiple noticeboard threads for years and apparently hasn’t noticed that no ones closing the stuff. If you want a symptom of how bad the problem is, finding the prior discussions is difficult because his signature is so present at ANRFC it clogs up the archive search. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @TonyBallioni:, ah, I misuderstood. Well; if something has been raised as potential issue, agreed to be one, and the issue continues as before then that rather limits our options. ——Serial # 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just say there have been a couple times that I've been involved with a discussion and didn't list it here because Cunard had already done it. It would be a shame if those weren't closed just because people got tired of Cunard's postings. I've also been in discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it. I suppose it's possible that Cunard could be posting against the wishes of those involved, but I haven't seen it (then again, it's not a page I really monitor -- I'm just drawing on discussions I've been involved with). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe this thread from February to be the last discussion of this topic. My thinking on this hasn't changed since then so I will just quote myself It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way...with the result, I suppose, that you then went elsewhere, and the backlog got longer. Absolutely your prerogative. But I imagine you're not the only one... ——Serial # 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your supposition about me is correct. I also suspect I'm not the only one who would pitch in sometimes if it were easier to find the closes that most needed attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the suggestion in that thread and here, I’ve gone ahead and marked 10 discussions as  Not done. More probably could be marked as such, but those are the quick ones I was able to clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done a couple more of the oldest ones which had quite clearly already been actioned by the participants. I think that Cunard could at least ask the participants if they need a formal close before posting here. I marked as nd one that was on the footie Wikiproject; the participants there might actually positively resent an admin poking their nose in where it wasn't wanted. SpinningSpark 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is good, for the time being. Now, all things being equal, do we have the means (or the inclination), to stop the issue becoming a perennial one? (Anymore than it is, perhaps.) ——Serial # 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started closing some of these when it was originally posted, then edit-conflicted with Spinningspark with some "not done" ones that I could close. I'm going to sit this one out for now, but I tried. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Drmies (talk · contribs) and Primefac (talk · contribs) for your work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC yesterday. I deeply appreciate your hard work. Drmies, this was a nuanced and very well explained close of a contentious RfC. Primefac, your close here allowed the article to be updated to the version supported by consensus.

      The below is a modified version of my post here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 wrote in June 2016:

      I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

      Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog. I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. This has further reduced the backlog.

      I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over eight years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for eight years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I have in mind the RfCs mentioned by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs): "discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it". I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

      As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

      Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

      If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

      More concretely, Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday closed a stale 95-day-old RfC with the result: "There is a narrow margin for converting the pie chart to the 'Pew' version listed below." Primefac then modified the article to use the updated pie chart based on the RfC consensus. If this RfC had not been closed, the article likely would never have been updated.

      This 95-day-old RfC was one of the 12 RfCs yesterday that was marked {{not done}}. If Primefac had not assessed the consensus in the RfC at the same time it was marked not done, a change that had consensus likely never would have been made. For the other RfCs that had been marked as not done, I think closes would have been helpful but will not contest those decisions. I will procedurally close the RfCs and direct editors to create a request WP:ANRFC if they would like a close.

      Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible solutions going forward

    I suggest that we should tighten the guidelines for posting new requests on the board. If we still have regular repeat offenders after that, then that is a behavioral issue that we already have the mechanisms to deal with. Here are some suggestions for possible guidelines;

    • The nominator has requested the close
    • A participant in the RFC has requested the close
    • The RfC is on a substantive issue of policy (not a discussion of clarity or style)
    • An administrator has requested the close
    • If the RfC has very low participation, the issue would be better settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

    Adding one or more of those, or something similar, should do the trick. SpinningSpark 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the guidelines of that page since WT:ANRFC exists. I also object to listing an adminstrator requests the close as administrators have no special authority over content and while RfCs can be dispute resolution mechanisms and thus quasi in the sysop realm, this gives sysops more authority than I think we/they should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, I'm not a regular here. I was really just trying to respond to user:Serial Number 54129's comment and get a discussion going on what should be done going forward. It was not really meant to be a solid proposal, just some bullets to give the discussion something to focus on. What I don't think is a solution is leaving requests to fester unanswered. That results in frustration for good faith nominators and loss of faith in the adminstration of the site. SpinningSpark 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring that requests meet one of the first three points above seems reasonable (I agree with Barkeep on the fourth point being kind of inappropriate). Though there are occasionally cases where the participants forget about an RfC but an unimplemented consensus has been reached, in which case Cunard's listings can be helpeful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    205.251.232.0/22's block

    Hello, it seems that 205.251.232.0/22 isn't actually an AWS range, "merely" owned by Amazon. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file for further details. Could you please have a look? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Martin Urbanec: There's some unusual WHOIS records in that range, and some other things that say to me that at least some of it is part of their corporate network. Some of the later edits also look a bit specialized. Unless anyone has some contrary views I'm happy to unblock it - we have the /20 blocked so I'll take a chance on unblocking that. You know it's also globally blocked, right? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam / vandalism magnets

    Resolved by JzG Nosebagbear (talk)

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

    There are two Wikipedia pages that attract a slow drip of spam and vandalism, and are otherwise stable, seldom needing any actual updating.

    The disruption is seldom high enough volume for a WP:AIAV request, and would likely result in either "not enough recent disruption" or possible a short semiprotection, leaving us where we were once it expires. But it is ongoing, and will no doubt continue at the current slow rate for the indefinite future.

    Pretty much every website that gives advice about Search engine optimization tells the readers to use robots.txt and sitemaps to control what the search engines index, and creating online tools that scan a webpage to generate these files -- and then, all too often, spamming them on Wikipedia -- is popular among new programming students.

    I would suggest these two pages as being excellent candidates for indefinite pending changes protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. You make a persuasive case. Guy (help!) 16:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=958165644"