Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wekeepwhatwekill (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 12 August 2020 (→‎Removal of patroller right). 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 Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 0 13 73 86
    TfD 0 1 1 4 6
    MfD 0 0 5 0 5
    FfD 0 0 2 0 2
    RfD 0 0 43 40 83
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 8380 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Kuči (tribe) 2024-09-12 00:06 2025-09-12 00:06 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/EE ToBeFree
    Russians at War 2024-09-11 18:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Flourless chocolate cake 2024-09-11 16:00 2025-09-11 16:00 edit,move Edit warring by autoconfirmed Valereee
    Marron glacé 2024-09-11 15:57 2025-09-11 15:57 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, ongoing, by autoconfirmed editors Valereee
    Koi Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Koi... Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Sarah McBride 2024-09-11 03:33 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action under GENSEX Daniel Case
    Election denial movement in the United States 2024-09-11 02:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP AP Ad Orientem
    Lisa Cameron 2024-09-11 00:47 2025-09-11 00:47 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    Virtuous Pedophiles 2024-09-10 23:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Aoidh
    Elisa Hategan 2024-09-10 23:45 2024-09-17 23:45 edit,move Dropping to ecp, edit war is between non-ec accounts ScottishFinnishRadish
    Caleb Alloway 2024-09-10 23:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
    Jaime Macías Alarcón 2024-09-10 23:22 indefinite create Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
    Anomaly detection 2024-09-10 21:36 2024-09-17 21:36 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    September 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack 2024-09-10 19:29 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Koch people 2024-09-10 18:55 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Talk:Болдбаатарын Дамдиндорж 2024-09-10 05:13 2024-09-17 05:13 create Liz
    2024 Masyaf strikes 2024-09-10 01:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Niyogi Brahmin 2024-09-10 01:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Amira Hass 2024-09-09 20:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    Sodhi 2024-09-09 18:59 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE Favonian
    Template:WPLA10k 2024-09-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:Ironland 2024-09-09 10:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Lectonar
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIBES FM Hamburg 2024-09-09 10:44 indefinite edit,move No longer necessary: requested at WP:RPPD Johnuniq
    Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hamish Ross 2024-09-08 18:46 indefinite edit,move LTA Elli
    Template:Sandbox heading/Navigation 2024-09-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4943 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Rape in Pakistan 2024-09-08 17:16 2024-12-08 17:16 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case
    2024 Allenby Bridge shooting 2024-09-08 17:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi 2024-09-08 05:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Killing of Aysenur Eygi 2024-09-08 05:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Vrishni 2024-09-08 04:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Abhira people 2024-09-08 04:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case

    Appeal to rescind Topic Ban

    Background

    Davidbena's original post follows. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe, hope it's OK, I added a minor tweak in green to prevent people from getting the wrong idea that this request is forumshopping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I, the appealing user, Davidbena (talk · contribs · WHOIS), am humbly submitting this petition to rescind a Topic ban imposed against me by Ymblanter in the ARBPIA area; imposed here (no. 55), during my last appeal in November of 2019, and which I had mistakenly tried to appeal on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard earlier this year. My wrongly placed topic ban appeal was declined on 13 June 2020 as shown here and where I was asked to submit a new appeal at AN, at a later time. I have duly informed all administrators involved in imposing this ban (Euryalus, Bishonen, Oshwah, Ymblanter), hoping for a fair and equitous resolution of the same.

    The reason for this appeal is, first and foremost, because the current Topic ban in the ARBPIA area has been active against me for the duration of a little over one year. I am humbly asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, seeing that many of the articles classified under the ARBPIA template are, in fact, historical places (e.g. Kafr 'Inan, Bayt Nattif, Solomon's Pools, Old City (Jerusalem), etc.). Often, the involvement of these places in the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts are only incidental to their broader historical context and scope, for which I am mostly interested in writing about. If I should ever touch on the Arab-Israeli wars from a historical perspective, I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among fellow contributors. I will also keep foremost in my mind that we, as editors, are to present a fact-based and fact-checked narrative of events, based on reliable sources, and detached from all personal bias and/or taking any side in this area of conflict. I assure my fellow co-editors here that I will not use my role as editor to advocate any advocacy on behalf of any one side in this conflict, but try to be as open-minded as I can to both arguments of the conflict in question (having a healthy respect and goodwill for all peoples who live in and share the same land), stating the facts as neutrally as I possibly can, whenever I am called upon to do so.

    I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors, and try to present both sides of the argument (if need be), that is to say, neutrality, rather than pursue an advocacy for any one side, just as requested by WP policy.

    Recently, I was asked to fix problems in the reference formatting of an article nominated for DYK that is classified as ARBPIA, as shown here, but because of its ARBPIA classification, I could not do anything to that article.

    DISCLAIMER: a) In those articles where there is an ARBPIA template, I have altogether refrained from editing; b) in those articles where there is not an ARBPIA template, my edits in them have not been about anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Only once on a Talk-Page did I vaguely mention it in passing, but when reminded that this topic is "off-limits" to me even in unmarked pages, I quickly desisted.Davidbena (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Reading the discussion that imposed your Topic ban, I see it is your second indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic ban (which you neglected to mention in this appeal), and that after the first one was lifted you returned to the same problematic editing. That's all I need to know. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us a second time, stay topic banned permanently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll just add that, briefly looking through some of the previous disputes, I come across this comment from Davidbena in April 2019: "Actually, Josephus disproves the theory of modern revisionists of history (who dare dispute the historicity of King Solomon)...". Anyone with that approach to history and to WP:RS shouldn't be allowed within a mile of this subject matter (broadly construed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, first indefinite topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Boing! said Zebedee:, I didn't forget the first topic ban on purpose, but thought that it was more important to write about the second, the active topic ban only.Davidbena (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering your second ban was imposed just two months after the first one was lifted, and you were advised at AE to include the full timescale of your bans at any AN appeal, I'd say that was exceptionally poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading through all this again today, I'm struck by Nableezy's comments below, which I find gracious and constructive. Nableezy is far closer to this subject area and its disputes, and my own judgment is far less well informed, so I'm withdrawing my opposition to the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erk Does Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fall within said topic ban? (tiptoes away quietly and finally goes back to bed.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Deepfriedokra, also: Wadi al-Far'a (river) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a river in the West Bank; Madaba Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a map of the Holy Land showing the "border between Israel and Palestine" and used by both sides in claims of destiny. Guy (help!) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The articles you mention are not under the general ARBPIA ban, since the ban only applies to articles where the ARBPIA template has been appended on the Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Davidbena: Err, is it? Your original topic ban was from "all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed". Was there some later discussion clarified it only applied to articles with a template? – Joe (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe Roe, What do those articles have to do with the IP conflict? Is the Hebrew alphabet now part of the conflict? Is a mosaic from the 6th Century now part of the conflict? No, it's not. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sir Joseph: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet: just look at its talk page. There are disputes on whether the script or exists independently or is an Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade. Davidbena participated extensively in a contentious merge discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. The Madaba Map, as Guy has already mentioned, is an important piece of historical geography used in contemporary territorial claims: Although the original Madaba Map was part of a Christian edifice situated outside Palestine, it was highly regarded by Zionist archaeologists not only for its universal significance but as a remnant of the Jewish national past in Palestine. The Zionist rhetoric used it to verify the important role of the city of Jerusalem in the Jewish narrative of place. The idea of creating modern maps of Jerusalem, in the spirit of the Madaba Map is best exemplified by Naomi Henrik's mosaic decoration (Figure 7), originally installed in 1957 outside the entrance to the Jerusalem Municipality building and later transferred and reinstalled at the Mount Herzl complex in Jerusalem. [1] Anyone working on the history of the Southern Levant would agree that there is practically nothing about it that isn't politicised. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe, look again at the Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. In the section where I was involved in the discussion about this antiquated script, there was no mention whatsoever about "Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade." And, besides, I was unaware of its mention. So, does this mean that if the article New York has a discussion on its Talk-Page about Palestinian nationalists or Israeli nationalists in one of its sections that I am not free to talk about the city of New york in a different section? I do not think that this falls under the definition of "broadly construed."Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe Roe, None of those examples have anything to do with the conflict. You're basically stretching it. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You're basically stretching it, i.e., broadly construing it. FWIW, I think Davidbena has attempted to abide by the expectations of the TBAN as he understands them, but it would've been wiser, as BMK points out below, to avoid the area altogether and focus his edits in a completely different area. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Grandpallama, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but the page is not even "broadly construed" to be part of the conflict, merely because some people mention "nationalism" on the talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Deepfriedokra, I think what you are doing is muddying the water. To say that Paleo-Hebrew falls under ARBPIA conflict is ludicrous and knowing that most people will not check the page for content. Really shameful that you'd mention it. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. A second indefinite ban indicates a serious problem, and the appeal doesn't address that other than to repeat the platitudes that turned out to be false promises last time. Guy (help!) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Guy, I understand your worries, but I wish to remind you that both topic bans against me were the result of my having filed complaints against two other editors, for which I am terribly sorry and I am resolved never again to cast aspersions against them. I am simply asking for an opportunity to prove myself, and, if all else fails, this body can ban me without any right to an appeal.Davidbena (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. First, to clarify for others, although Davidbena's topic ban cites ARBPIA and he implies it was placed by Ymblanter, it's a community ban, nothing to do with arbitration, discretionary sanctions or arbitration enforcement as far as I can tell. As to the appeal, the idea that historic (pre-1948) topics are only "incidentally" related to the Israel–Palestine conflict is deeply flawed. Everything about the ownership, naming and interpretation of historic sites in Israel–Palestine, from the 20th century right back into prehistory, is highly politicised and contested. Both sides in the contemporary conflict lean heavily on contested historical claims. It's hard to believe that anyone familiar with this area could be genuinely ignorant of this. It's especially hard to be believe Davidbena is, because the previous discussions of his topic ban have mainly concerned his edits to historic topics, and he has recently been involved in PIA-related content disputes in articles like Paleo-Hebrew alphabet and Hebraization of Palestinian place names. In fact, I think some sort of boomerang is in order given that this and other edits above seem to be clear breaches of his topic ban. At the very least, we should clarify/reiterate that he his banned from the Palestine-Israel topic broadly construed, not just articles that happen to have this-or-that template. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, the re-imposed topic ban from May 2019 said "Davidbena is again indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed", not "all WP:ARBPIA topics with the template on the talk page."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Even so, where the ARBPIA template does not appear, I have still refrained from discussing ARBPIA topics. Only once did I err in this regard, and quickly ceased from doing it again. All other edits were of a general non-political nature, such as archaeological/historical/geographical issues, without raising the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, if my edits were wrong, I would have expected someone to tell me that I cannot edit pages such as the Onomasticon (Eusebius), although the work has absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even though it speaks about towns and villages in the Holy Land.Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe, I wish to remind you and others here that in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names it was agreed upon by the contributing editors NOT to add the ARBPIA template, which enabled me to edit that page, where the issues were purely geographical. Only once did I err there, and was quickly reprimanded, and I stopped. When the editors decided that the article belonged to the ARBPIA category it was then that I stopped editing that article altogether.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I can see how the template issue could be an honest misunderstanding (but to reiterate, your TBAN is from the topic and broadly construed, it has nothing to do with the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions). But are you seriously claiming that the archaeology, history and geography of Israel–Palestine is "non-political"? Hebraization of Palestinian place names, for example, is about the replacement of Arabic placenames with Hebrew ones, particularly after the 1948 and 1967 wars. An editor like you, who is knowledgeable about this subject, should not need a template to tell you that is directly related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, they are "non-political" when most of the discussions there were strictly about the British governance over the country, before the rise of the State of Israel, and where the article speaks about the naming of sites after the rise of the State, my edits referred only to the ancient history of these sites, preserved in Arabic writing, and which have nothing to do with the conflict between Jews and Arabs. In fact, I stressed the importance of preserving the Old Arabic names since they are a reflection of the Old Hebrew names. What's more, my edits had absolutely nothing to do with the political conflict, but only geography and placenames (except for once when I briefly mentioned the conflict, but quickly deleted it). Again, I would NEVER have edited this page had the ARBPIA template not been removed.Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe Roe, please clarify how Paleo-Hebrew is covered under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've answered you above. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, indeed, Joe Roe has answered that query above, but also more substantively in their oppose comment — in an especially eloquent and poignant way, I would add. El_C 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      El C, as I said above, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but it's ludicrous to say that Paleo-Hebrew is part of the IP conflict, even broadly construed. I once mentioned that I can get any page on Wikipedia to be "broadly construed" and we really shouldn't be doing that. Just because one person mentions "nationalism" on the talk page (which may or may not have anything to do with the conflict) we should not be bringing more pages into the conflict area.Sir Joseph (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, the fact is that the Committee has chosen to widen the scope of ARBPIA, as can be seen in ARBPIA4's Definition of the "area of conflict" onto "primary articles" and "related content." El_C 16:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      El C, none of those applies to Paleo-Hebrew. I agree with Boing below. IF we are going to sanction someone or not accept an appeal for a TBAN, it should be for a valid TBAN violation, not for some 1 mile stretch of a TBAN topic violation. Can I edit the USA article if I'm TBANNED from the IP conflict since the USA is related to Israel and Israel is associated with the conflict? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, I don't disagree that for "related content," the nature of the edits in question must be weighed in relation to ARBPIA, directly. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have opposed previous appeals. For this one, I just want to point out that I'm disappointed that Davidbena was selective in following the advice he was given for this appeal. While he did notify relevant admins, he did not disclose the full sequence of bans and appeals, as suggested. This whitewashes the history here, for anyone who sees this appeal and is unaware. Grandpallama (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. I've added the background to the top of this thread. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh dear, that shows the second ban was only two months after the first ban was lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the Topic ban came only "two months" after my first Topic ban, but I think it can be fairly appreciated by my fellow co-editors here that a previously banned editor (such as myself) has no way of knowing that if he files a complaint against another editor (say, an editor whom he thought may have acted injudiciously) that the complaint would backfire and he would find himself banned once more. I'm sorry, but this is what happened to me, and I admit that I was haste in my judgment, and that I have since made amends with that same editor; in short, I will not do this again.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say that both filing that complaint in the first place, and then not expecting any possible backfire, is another example of very poor judgment. I don't doubt that you are well meaning, but I just think you don't have the ability to see other viewpoints or to understand why your approach has been so problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Clear lack of understanding as to WHY the ban was placed in the first place. And no, filing a complaint is NOT a reason for a topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, I'm sorry, but if I made amends with the editor against whom I filed a complaint is this not a sign of remorse and understanding where I had been wrong? If this isn't, what is?Davidbena (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per the selective sanction history portrayed by Davidbena and the topic ban violations found by Deepfriedokra and JzG --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Guerillero, can you clarify the violations? Are you saying that paleo-Hebrew is under ARBPIA violation? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - It's quite clear from past actions and the comments here that Davidbena really has no intrinsic sense of how he should be editing while under a broadly -construed topic ban. It has always been my opinion that people under such a ban should edit far, far, away from the subject area in question, but that has not been the case here, nor do I see it ever being the case. In fact, what I foresee is an eventual site ban for frittering around the edges of the ban and sticking his toes into the water once too often, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Beyond My Ken, shalom. If I were to follow your guidelines (which I think are misguided), I would not be able to edit any article (even of geographical/historical/archaeological natures) that has to do with any place in Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, but this is NOT what is meant by being "broadly construed." And besides, I have not discussed Israeli-Palestinian issues since my Topic ban, except for once, and I was quickly reprimanded and I stopped.Davidbena (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm afraid that is exactly what is meant by broadly construed. See WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. It would be one thing if the Israel–Palestine conflict had nothing to do with history or historical geography, but it does. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My understanding of "broadly construed" means simply not to bring-up in conversation any mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether in articles that have the ARBPIA template or in articles that do not have the ARBPIA template. However, to speak about Israeli food in a Tel-Aviv article is permitted. As for Arab-Israeli political issues, I have refrained from them altogether.Davidbena (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      While I am skeptical of Davidbena's ability to edit neutrally in this area if his TBAN were lifted, and I think he misrepresents his history of edit conflicts in this area, I do suspect his editing around the edges of this area is more a product of his beliefs about what the TBAN entails rather than a deliberate attempt to push the envelope. That said, if a consensus exists that some of these topics lie within the boundaries of "broadly construed", it's probably to his benefit that this expectation is clarified. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe Roe, that is incorrect. If someone is TBANNED from the IP conflict, they aren't TBANNED from Israel or Palestine articles. Editing an article that has nothing to do with the conflict is not prohibited and we should not be locking down articles where there is no conflict just for the sake of locking it down. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The scope of the current topic ban has come up above, and I'll comment here to avoid fragmenting any other conversations. It's not a DS ban, but as "ARBPIA" was specifically mentioned, I don't think it's unreasonable of Davidbena to have interpreted it as covering only the I/P conflict itself (even with "broadly construed" - that's such an nebulous concept that what might seem like obvious coverage to some will seem different to others). Yes, it could have been interpreted more broadly, but I don't see Davidbena's interpretation as obviously implausible, and I do see it as being in good faith. If the community wants to tighten the definition of the topic ban scope then that of course can be covered here. But I think any sanction for allegedly breaking the ban through a good faith interpretation of its scope would be wrong, and I would strongly oppose any such move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, and very well put. Grandpallama (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never understand exactly how broadly is "broadly construed". If I am topic banned from AP2, can I edit United States of America? Christianity? American English? United States Constitution? AR-15? Mass shooting? North America? If I am topic banned from PIA, can I edit Hebrew or Arabic? Islam or Judaism? Military occupation or terrorism? Middle East? If I am topic banned from The Troubles can I edit Great Britain or Ireland? Catholicism or Protestantism? What if I just edit the portions of those articles that don't relate to the conflict? I'm glad I'm not topic banned from anything because I'd have no idea. Without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Wikipedia's search function broken for you? I mean the this description of what constitutes topic bans is pretty comprehensive. To help you, I've reproduced it below:
        • The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
          • weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind and List of weather records, and their talk pages;
          • weather-related categories such as all of the categories that are associated with Category:Weather;
          • weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;
          • weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
          • discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).
      • Does that answer your questions -- or were your questions just a rhetorical device not actually dependent on answers? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't answer any of my questions. Most of what you've copied and pasted isn't even relevant to my questions (nobody is asking about categories or project pages, etc.). But feel free to provide answers to my questions if you'd like. I think you'll find answering those questions isn't as easy as copy and pasting from the help file. Same with the issue about Paleo-Hebrew raised in this thread. You'll notice several editors disagree on that one, a sure sign of a tricky issue. (Also I'd suggest removing or collapsing all that irrelevant text you copied and pasted, for the sake of our colleagues.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          So, basically, the skills of applying general principles to specific examples and understanding general principles through the use of examples, these are difficult for you? There's not much point in trying to help someone who is determined not to understand something, so pardon me if I don't waste both my time and yours in your sealioning. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Ad hominem attacks are admissions of defeat. Lev!vich 02:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't and have never doubted David's good faith here, and I take him at his word on his understanding of the topic ban and what it applied to and I think the arguments above on whether or not such and such page is covered by it should be reframed so it is less about his mistakes in understanding about the ban previously and more about helping him adhere to it in the future. I also dont think it is reasonable to say somebody who is subject to a topic ban about the ARBPIA topic should refrain from editing subjects even remotely related. David is one of our better resources for the Jewish history in Israel/Palestine, he researches thoroughly and when not discussing modern politics is in my honest opinion an affable and pleasant person who is enjoyable to work with. I think perhaps there needs to be a bit more clarity of the extent of the ban, but I do not see what he has been doing as "frittering around the edges". I dont really think Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, as the example contested above, is covered by his ban (though Sir Joseph I also do not think you are helping David even a little bit here). Broadly construed still has limits and I think that example goes quite a bit past those limits. My view on his ban remains unchanged. If David commits to a. not promoting fringe viewpoints regarding the modern politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and b. commits to not questioning the motives of those who have opposing viewpoints to him, then I still have no problem with him editing in the topic area. If his ban is not rescinded I would strongly suggest that it be narrowed. David is an asset for a lot of these articles, he brings sources and research that nobody else does. We should let him. Anything that is not directly related to the modern state of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians should be excluded from his ban. Ancient villages, ancient alphabets, ancient anything should be excluded from his ban. nableezy - 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support remove TBAN. This whole ill-conceived mess is a setup for failure. It is too subjective, too vague, too arbitrary, and too confusing. Davidbena has been editing constructively and with forebearance about subjects that may or not have been covered by his topic ban. No one can say for sure whether they are or not.. As Levivich puts it, "without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a narrower ban per Nableezy: something like (a) retaining topic ban on modern-day Palestinian-Israeli conflict, (b) a strict sanction on questioning the motives of other editors or promoting fringe theories in any area, and (c) otherwise permitting editing of Middle Eastern regional topics including ancient Jewish history, geography, etc unrelated to the modern state. (Nableezy, let me know if I've misinterpreted your view). Not normally a supporter of a "last chance" after a previous "last chance" but some of the comments here encouraged a look at Davidbena's wider editing history, and they seem a competent and well-researched editor outside the immediate topic area of modern Israel-Palestine. On that basis the encyclopedia seems better off for their ancient history/geography/cultural contributions, and we should aim to let them carry on in those spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lifting or narrowing the topic ban, per Nableezy, DFO and Euryalus, and per lack of evidence of continued disruption. To me, whether David properly formatted this appeal by linking to the prior ones, and David's understanding of what "broadly construed" means, are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether David has been editing without being disruptive and the answer seems to be yes. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lifting the topic ban. The editor has shown remorse, and sincerely plans to edit in accordance with the expectations of the community, including the higher expectations in the sensitive area of the WP:ARBPIA area. I find the fact that Nableezy, who could be considered to be on the opposite site of that conflict from the editor who filed this request, has agreed to lifting the topic ban, and has in fact described this editor in a very positive light, a telling sign that Wikipedia only stands to gain from lifting this editor's topic ban. I would like to add that the rather unforgiving approach of some here, is tantamount to a declaration that no topic ban can ever be rescinded, and editors can't ever improve their old ways. I refuse to acquiesce to such a position, and think that any closure of this request should contain a general statement rejecting that position. Likewise I think there is little to be gained from the formalist approach of some here, with undue stress on whether the filing included all relevant details. In this regards I'd like to stress that the filing editor explained that he thought it would be enough to mention the current, active topic ban only, and I find that a convincing explanation. In short, Davidbena is one of our better editors, who after over a year of his topic ban has understood well how he is to behave in the WP:ARBPIA area, and I think it would be more than reasonable to give him the chance to contribute positively to this project in that area as well by rescinding his topic ban at this time. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support narrowing of the Tban per Nableezy and Euryalus, along the lines proposed above. I'm moved by the fact that in this appeal and earlier ones, users who had interacted with him most said that he was capable of working well with others and brought unique skills to the project, but was let down by occasional lapses in judgement and conduct. Let's give him a chance to use those skills to the benefit of the project in a wider range of areas, and perhaps after six months of issue-free editing he could request that the ban be lifted altogether? GirthSummit (blether) 14:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Narrow topic ban for now. Per Euryalus. starship.paint (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Narrow, but do not lift based upon what I've seen here. I remain unconvinced that the statements here, which are not radically different from ones made in the past, represent a genuine shift in approach to editing. On the other hand, Nableezy makes a compelling case for why we should not let sanctions to prevent disruption in one area result in blocking valuable contributions by an editor in another area. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, constructive and hard working editor who has realized the error in his past transgressions.--Hippeus (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for narrower ban

    SUGGESTED COMPROMISE: If it will make the decision process any easier for administrators and/or contributing editors here, I will agree to remain under my ARBPIA topic ban for another year or two (when I will then be free to submit another appeal), but meanwhile, if agreed upon here by the editors, I will be specifically prohibited from adding content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on all Wikipedia pages - with or without the ARBPIA tag, but I will be ALLOWED to contribute only on geographical issues, or on pre-1948 historical issues, and on archaeological issues in all ARBPIA articles, including the uploading of images to these Wikipedia sites, as may seem fitting to me. Many of my contributions, prior to my ban, have already been to upload images to these pages. In this way, I will continue to behave with restrictions in what concerns the Israeli-Palestinian area of conflict, but contribute in ways that are mutually beneficial to all.Davidbena (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can somebody close this? Last time David appealed it just sat here until being archived. nableezy - 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support lifting ban. David is a knowledgeable editor and has reflected on his actions and is unlikely to repeat them. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Nableezy above, it'd be a shame if this just got archived without outcome because everyone got tired of commenting. Adding a subject header above, and FWIW support Davidbena's suggested compromise as something worth trying. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RedWarn TBANs/Blacklisting

    Pinging @Floquenbeam and Deepfriedokra: who mentioned it in discussion A couple of discussions have raised issues about the additional damage people with RedWarn can cause (I should note that in each case Twinkle was noted as also having the same issues - it's a general tool point). There is a live case where it was mooted as a potential issue in ANI atm.

    I dropped a query to @Ed6767: just as to the possibility of being able to blacklist problematic users from using it, which would allow a means of limiting use of RedWarn short of a full block, or at least a tool-related TBAN.

    Ed6767 was commendably quick and has set up a page where admins could add users viewed as not suited to using it (we'd protect it and notify Ed before first use), and is working on the backend coding. Obviously a user could, say, switch to Twinkle but limiting issues where we can is to be appreciated.

    This is partially an FYI of the potential use (hence AN, not VPR) and partially a question:

    To me it seems like it should be akin removing Rollback userright from a problematic user who is unable to use Huggle properly. That would allow any admin to add a user to the list (subject to AN appeals) as well as community additions.

    However, it could be interpreted as it should be purely TBAN-authorised. I felt it best to clarify this first. The blacklist page is here - Ed just wrote up the page form as it is, so there may also be specific notes in it that need amending by the community.

    Viewpoints? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The wider point which would lead to less of these issues cropping up would be to raise the usage pre-reqs in the first place (e.g. extended confirmed or rollback). I can't imagine we'd be having these discussions as often if it wasn't something that anybody could pick up and run with. Darren-M talk 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (pining most active maintainer) Amorymeltzer, would you be willing to implement a blacklist of a similar fashion into Twinkle? Having one standardised blacklist for similar semi-automated tools with the rather low (auto-)confirmed might help reduce abuse on enwiki. Ed6767 talk! 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping — I noted this below, but Twinkle used to have such a list. It was removed as essentially unused and a pain to maintain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple solution would be just to require rollback to use it and then yank rollback if there are issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that Twinkle and RedWarn should need RB (though that would absolutely be a simple way to handle it). Shifting to EC is a possibility, though I'd still be reticent - it would drop problems, significantly, certainly, but also have a significant collateral effect. If a single blacklist were possible that would be a plus, as a distinct point from minimum permission level. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it should be a requirement for twinkle, because we’re not really seeing problems with Twinkle. I’d prefer roll back to EC, because we’re really hesitant to yank EC, but more willing to take away rollback. I don’t like the blacklist idea because it requires demonstrated error rather than demonstrated competence. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be very easy to implement by simply changing one word in the code, but that would slash user appeal and uptake, we're already running abysmally low on editors willing to do RCP and it's hard to introduce a new tool when its user base is artificially bottlenecked by that right. Ed6767 talk! 19:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the problem is that people using red warm are starting to cause more good faith disruption than the vandals. We have bots, Huggle, Stiki, edit filters, etc. Most of the stuff that’s being reverted would get taken care of anyway. If we’re constantly having to have a discussion about Red Warn, then it is causing more harm than it’s preventing. Finding a way to help change that dynamic is what we’re after. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed6767, I would question whether we are actually seeing such a dearth of RCPers as you think; I regularly log into Huggle to see 'nothing to review', or try to revert an edit to find I've been beaten to it. What evidence are you seeing that would suggest reducing the amount of people with access to RedWarn would have a detrimental impact on the project? Darren-M talk 19:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that 85% of the stuff I have to revert when doing RCP is not a highlighted edit, and over 50% doesn't trip any of the less dramatic warnings/tags. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darren-M and TonyBallioni:, see above ^^ - TonyBalloni, those systems are not watertight. RCP isn't just for vandalism, but for promotional edits, spam links, poor sourcing, BLP issues and much more. STiki is dead, Huggle has a practically inaccessible and cryptic design for many non-technical users, especially ones who edit using ChromeOS devices or mobile (especially with iPadOS), an increasingly popular option, and Twinkle is good for many things, but pretty poor at for recent changes patrol - in fact, it frustrated me enough to go out of my way to create a tool to fix its issues. Here's some idea I have that could solve issues:
    • Disable auto-warn for non-ECo editors
    • Add automatic abuse detection systems in RedWarn (tricky but could try)
    • You can still patrol RedWarn changes with the #RedWarn tag in recent changes (excluding reverts by users with rollback rights due to a weird bug)
    • We're currently planning to migrate RedWarn from a userscript to toolforge also, so additional restrictions would be much, much easier to implement. The new redwarn-react project intends to make RedWarn feel much more like a tool, and help fix many of the current issues with the redwarn-web userscript.
    • Integrating RedWarn more with the CVUA, or adding an "ask for help" button where you can get another more experienced RedWarn users opinion on an edit and see what actions they take, or implement a tutorial, however, this could make it feel, to some, even more "like a video game" than a powerful tool.
    Quite frankly, the same issues occur with Twinkle, if not more, but as a new and more niche tool, there have been issues. This is more than a RedWarn specific problem, but due to its user-friendliness and consequential use by more inexperienced users, using RedWarn to implement new anti-abuse mechanisms to pave the way for other tools may be ideal. I'd love to hear more of people's suggestions, but I don't think restricting the entire tool to rollbackers only is the right way to go. Ed6767 talk! 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that RCP isn’t just for vandalism, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here: it’s been marketed to inexperienced users, and they’ve basically been the only people using it. Because of this, I think in its current iteration RedWarn has probably caused more damage to Wikipedia than it has cleaned up, when you consider the fact that most of this stuff would have been picked up otherwise. I don’t think it has to continue to be a net-negative tool, but it currently is because of the population that uses it. The easy way to fix that is to make it have the same requirements as other automated/semi-automated tools: that is it should have a requirement for use, not a blacklist for misuse. If you do that, I think it’ll move the tool into being really helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The marketing has never been targeted at inexperienced users, it's user-friendliness has consequentially resulted in less experienced users using it. Back during my "invite" campaign, I'd only target users with a competent knowledge of using Twinkle. The stock RedWarn EXTUB template pack doesn't actually even include an invite for non-Twinkle users - this was solely in an attempt to gather feedback from experienced editors, and to mitigate the negative impact on RedWarn's reputation newer inexperienced users would cause within the first 2 months of its existence. Again, due to its still small user base, misuse will, of course, appear more prominently than users who use the tool appropriately and in good faith. Despite this, it's still an issue, and we'll continue discussing solutions to this both here and behind the scenes to refine things and hopefully mitigate some of these issues and hopefully pull RedWarn up to the standards of more experienced editors through the redwarn-react project Ed6767 talk! 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beside the point, but with links and rollback-in-place on recent changes, I think Twinkle hums pretty nicely there! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amorymeltzer, to clarify, my main gripe with Twinkle for RCP is the fact that it still relies on multiple pages and things, rather than keeping one workflow all nice and bundled in one tab, it goes overboard opening a user page in a new tab, where you have to go into a little submenu and manually warn from there which can time quite some time, along with waiting for the page and Twinkle to load. Plus the "there have been x edits in a row" message, which I found quite frustrating and confusing, along with "this is no longer the latest revision" because you fill in the summary and everything and it's just like well sorry you're gonna have to do that all again - a textbook "computer says no" moment. It just slows things down and feels far less efficient, so there are definitely improvements to be made there. Ed6767 talk! 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c...sorry, I type slow and some of this is echoed above by others) Excellent; this morning, I just "enforced" a RedWarn ban by saying I'd indef block the user if they used it again. I like the idea of a blacklist much better. Three comments:
      • I would dearly love a similar way to prevent users from using Twinkle.
      • I've long been a fan of admins being able to issue topic bans and interaction bans (subject to review at WP:AN/ANI) to prevent disruption, rather than having to get advanced permission to do so at AN/ANI. It has always seemed a little crazy I can block someone indef for disruption, but not TBAN/IBAN for it. This goes double for removing access to RedWarn/Huggle/Twinkle. I'm trusted to not misuse blocking, and should be trusted to not misuse the less potent tool blacklisting. If I do misuse tool blacklisting, I'm subject to the same review process as misusing blocking. I really think it best to treat this like removing rollback, not like topic banning.
      • Thanks User:Nosebagbear for taking the initiative, and thanks User:Ed6767 for being so responsive.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree firmly with be able to add TBANs/IBANs without prior approval - our sole discretion siteblocks are for ultra-clearcut cases, ones which shouldn't just be resolvable with IBANs/TBANs. AE is ideologically unpleasant to me already - but that's a major discussion to hold elsewhere. However, tool blacklisting, I agree, would be a good discretionary activity. I should note that appeals should need a consensus to uphold the penalty, not overturn. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that, with the implementation of partial blocks, we can basically topic ban people from an article or a set of articles already. Editors can now even be blocked from entire namespaces...

    Anyway, wrt your proposal here, I'm certainly in favour of allowing admins to blacklist editors unilaterally subject to appeals. Salvio 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nosebagbear and Floquenbeam: I figure they're pretty different though. A TBAN or IBAN are because some folk is/are incapable of avoiding disruptive behavior in a specific area or around a specific individual; the general idea is to limit the specific realm of conflict. Misuse of a tool, though, is much more like WP:CIR issues, WP:IDHT, or just general disruptive behavior: it's a measure of basic competence. YMMV, but if someone is abusing/misusing a tool everywhere, that's just plain disruptive behavior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's history here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#New Twinkle blacklist proposal. Basically, Twinkle had a disallow list like is being mooted here, and in the end it was done away with. A few options were discussed, which participants here might want to read through. My general thinking is that such a disallow list is unlikely to ever be heavily populated, and that if someone is abusing or misusing a tool and continues to do so despite warnings, that's disruptive and we have tools for preventing that behavior. To quote Elen of the Roads, Twinkle isn't crack, users can just stop using it. Maintaining the list is a pain and adds complexity, when disruptive behavior should be treated as disruptive behavior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like a blacklist is useful for handling good-faith problematic use. The tools we have for preventing their mis-use, atm, are somewhat blunt when it comes to tool misuse that aren't tied to a userright. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that a block is blunt, but a user who can't figure out how to use a tool properly, and continues to use it incorrectly after being told how to remedy their behavior and/or to stop pretty quickly stops being good-faith or competent if they continue, no? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal feels slightly premature. The community can always ban someone from using a tool at AN/ANI. Unless we're seeing repeated instances of people not following such a ban, I don't know if having a developer add technical restrictions is a good use of their time, or anyone else's. To my knowledge, not a single ban from RedWarn has been proposed at AN/ANI yet, not even the case that prompted this discussion is a clear proposal for a ban for a single user using RW. RedWarn is not that popularly used by non-rollbackers, when you look at how many reverts are made per user using the tool, that it would be too taxing to bring the especially egregious cases to AN/ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it difficult to imagine a situation where this would be legitimately useful. Without commenting specifically on RedWarn, if I were to observe someone abusing a tool, I'd block them before even considering the possibility of adding them to a "blacklist". -FASTILY 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A simple solution would be just to require rollback to use it and then yank rollback if there are issues. Light bulb moment, Tony. El_C 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems silly to me to have a blacklist for tools that do fundamentally unprivileged operations like RedWarn. A good-faith user will stop using it when they're told they're banned from doing so, and a bad-faith user can trivially circumvent any such checks that are added. The blacklist page itself even says so: if a user can bypass the permission restrictions, they can likely bypass the blacklist too, so a block may be advisable instead of blacklisting Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't tried RedWarn, but my gut tells me that it ought to be for rollbackers only - that is the norm for powerful high-speed reverting tools that issue automated warnings, like Huggle or Stiki (although with Stiki I believe that it was possible to be added to a list of non-rollbackers that were given access).
    To go off at a bit of a tangent - I haven't felt tempted to try RedWarn myself, since I mostly use a Windows laptop for editing and am perfectly happy with using Twinkle for RC patrolling (with an occasional dip into Huggle to keep my hand in), but I can see the potential benefit of having a tool that works on different platforms. Where I really feel we have a hole in the counter-vandalism ecosystem, however, is the job that Stiki used to do - picking up old vandalism from Cluebot's queue, which made it through the Huggle/Twinkle net. I have in the past used Stiki to find flagrant BLP violations, of the 'unsourced allegations of sex offenses' kind, that went undetected for over a month. Does anyone know of any similar tools that allow you to pick up on dodgy diffs that might be days or even weeks old? GirthSummit (blether) 12:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, sadly at this point the most you have is Special:Search and a few choice queries along with Wikiloop Battlefield, but I'm unsure how well that really works - and it sounds stupid but a good way to filter down long term vandalism is to go on Twitter and/or other networks and search for "wikipedia lang:en" and sort by latest - past all the whining about things that you'll come to expect on the twitter dumpster fire I've been able to filter out serious long term vandalism through there Ed talk! 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifying general sanctions wording

    I've been discussing the COVID19 general sanctions with ProcrastinatingReader on my talk page, and we noticed that the two most recent regimes, WP:GS/COVID19 and WP:GS/MJ, do not follow the typical general sanctions requirements. Under WP:AC/DS and WP:GS, users must be made "aware" using {{Gs/alert}} prior to being sanctioned, but COVID and Michael Jackson sanctions only require an editor be "warned" without mentioning specifics. In two other recent regimes WP:GS/Wrestling says editors "should" be alerted with {{Gs/alert}}, but IRANPOL qualifies this as a "must". This inconsistency is a problem because the COVID19 GS discussion proposed sanctions that are similar in form to other community-authorized general sanctions, so it's not clear what was authorized given that the most recent sanctions differ on whether awareness is an explicit requirement. To clarify those past sanctions and to clarify decisions going forward, when authorizing general sanctions, is the default that an editor should or must (in terms of RFC 2119 definitions) have been alerted with {{Gs/alert}} prior to being sanctioned? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting, Wugapodes. For others, as reference, our discussion on talk: COVID Editnotice, which stemmed into whether an editnotice alone meets the awareness requirements, and I suppose whether alerts are required at all. For DS, it would not per this motion, but arb discussion there also notes that the motion isn't binding on GS: the Committee has no authority to modify general sanctions [...] If we decide to alter the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions, the most we can do is encourage the community to adopt the same changes.
    More broadly, we may as well clear up GS' "standard discretionary sanctions" in relation to DS while we're here. In my view, the WP:GS subpages (or the main page, for that matter) are not particularly great, have (or had) various inconsistencies and, along with the old set of templates, are somewhat arbitrary, so I kinda ignore them for the most part. Instead, referring directly to the previous WP:AN discussions that authorised said sanctions, wording along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised" was used (or "standard community-authorised general sanctions", which has effectively the same meaning). My weak understanding is that, more recently, this generally refers to authorising sanctions akin to ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, but it appears no discussion has explicitly decided if all of ArbCom's rules surrounding DS also apply (including WP:AWARE). And, if yes, should all future amendments ArbCom makes to the rules/procedures surrounding their DS sanctions also automatically apply to existing community sanctions, unless the community expressly approves a diversion from those requirements for a particular sanction? As it stands currently, it appears multiple admins, quite reasonably, have different interpretations in this somewhat hazy area. It appears there's no requirement for GS to formally be aligned with DS, and multiple sanction pages use should rather than must for alerting; the system does seem to keep falling out of sync with DS (at least in terms of templates), and I suppose an argument can be had whether ArbCom's relatively extensive requirements are a good thing to adopt for GS as well, or too strict and will allow more issues to slip through. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've suggested before that GS and DS should be merged - ArbCom should create a mechanism by which the community can impose discretionary sanctions which can be enforced at WP:AE etc. Having two similar sanction regimes that differ in subtle ways is very confusing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be a fan, but that also gives the community much less ability to change anything relating to the sanctions they've imposed. Just one example would be that we'd be probably unable to change the templates too much (DS' aren't so great either) without the consent of ArbCom. One example of an issue: just a few days ago El C and I caught Special:Diff/970494685, which has been standing for years after a motion confirmed this isn't correct. One other example: "restrictions" on templates that use the term seems to constantly cause confusion: the term does not include DS itself. Perhaps there will be a desire to have lower awareness requirements for a particular sanction (now or in the future), which isn't really possible if aligned with AC/DS. At least with a separate system the community can adjust them, or anything else, as it wishes. On a similar note, "GS and DS" feels like a misnomer - isn't DS technically a type of GS, and the sanctions the community imposes are also usually discretionary sanctions ("DS"), with really the main difference being they're community-authorised rather than ArbCom-authorised? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the other way round: the community could control the DS/GS policy and ArbCom could add conditions as necessary for its cases. Currently DS is an internal procedure, so it doesn't need ratified, just a majority committee vote without any direct community assent. We could amend the arbitration policy so that procedural changes to discretionary sanctions must be ratified by the community, which would make it easier to keep the two in sync since changes to both DS and GS would now need to go through the community hopefully preventing conflicts since the same group would review and amend both. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel I should specifically note that one feature I like about GS is that it doesn't run through AE. Appeals are purely at AN and it doesn't have the bonkers "sanctioning admin must have committed a felony to be overturned" level of appeal difficulty. I don't mind updating our wording to match, but I don't want to see it formally linked and i definitely don't want us grabbing their enforcement mechanisms. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not following your train of thought. AE is optional for WP:ACDS appeals. But it is, in fact, more often than not a superior forum, I would argue, where a quorum of uninvolved admins decide a case in a structured rather than threaded discussion — for appeals: often on the pros of the sanctioned editor rather than necessarily on the cons of the sanctioning admin. That is why I almost always recommend AE over AN/ANI, for both those seeking to impose sanctions as well as those seeking to lift them. El_C 13:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree to this solution. RGloucester — ☎ 12:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the current wording at WP:GS subpages has consensus at all, at a glance. See eg Special:Permalink/654489355, Special:Diff/654489841, vs proposal, the earliest diffs of this wording I can find, at a glance. The 2nd diff contradicts the proposal, even. I'm assuming this was an attempt to make the pages more helpful, not to prescribe the requirements.
    Best temporary solution here imo is to update all standard WP:GS subpages to the remedy wording of WP:GS/CASTE, which links to WP:AC/DS. A new subheading and a 1 line proposal for this may be most likely to get the community support required, since I suppose the above isn't generating much interest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    I blocked ObjectiveTruthIsImportant per WP:NOTHERE and because it seems to me rather unlikely that anyone whose first edit looks like this] is (a) genuinely a new user, and (b) here to help, rather than Wrong Great Rights. I have no objection to any other admin unblocking if this is thought to be wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    With a username like that? Absolutely RGW. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us now read from the Book of Antandrus, Chapter 72... Lev!vich 04:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Good job. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with cross-wiki abuse

    Is there anywhere for coordinating responses to cross-wiki abuse? I'm trying to clean up after Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Refspam_across_many_articles but it's very difficult to find equivalents to ANI on other wikis. The es.wiki page linked from here is semi-protected, the pl.wiki Wikipedia article is protected with no obvious way of requesting changes etc. Is there somewhere on meta where things can be coordinated? SmartSE (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging someond you personally know is easiest. If you don’t know anyone, going to the stewards list and pinging someone who is a native speaker of the language you’re looking at will also usually work. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Falkland Islands

    There was a war and everything. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Resolved

    So, I made a very simple question about splitting the article Falkland Islands in two articles. I got no plausible answers, but this is totally unacceptable. This user has been already blocked here and at Commons for disruptive editions and POV war. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything wrong with it. Your question got 6 responses. The answer was no. DrKay (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DrKay, why you changed the title of this thread and marked as Resolved? This is about the behaviour of a user, not about the article. The user in question attacked the spanish community by claiming "faking" every time, and no actions taken? Suspicious, --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) To quote you there: "As we at the Spanish Wikipedia" - if you identify as (in part) the architect of that wikipedia's articles, and want to duplicate it here, it is not unreasonable to take issue with the content of the articles there. Are the Spanish wikipedia using faked images of historical documents? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    «Are the Spanish wikipedia using faked images of historical documents?» To be fake, those documents should be faked by users rather than Argentina, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV, as every know, but prefer to continue with this biased discussion: Both documents (from argentina and the UK) are legitime. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)You know, I was tempted to write a fairly long explanation of what NPOV actually means with regards to biased sources and reliable sourcing, but I suspect from your reply it would be wasted. Suffice to say this is a non issue. You asked a question and had sufficient replies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the Spanish wikipedia uses photoshop manipulated versions of documents and have been for years. For example, the article over there uses a photoshopped embellishment of an 1820 Times article, it's copied from a pamphlet produced by the Argentine embassy. The editors on the Spanish wikipedia use it, knowing it is faked. As to a clear violation of WP:NPOV, the text that accompanies it reflects Argentine state propaganda. I find it illuminating that you're attempting to justify fake history. WCMemail 15:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

    Hello there. The White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) article is subjected to 1RR and a short time ago from my time of writing, I twice violated this term. When it was brought to my attention I self-reverted (oddly by undoing another editor who himself self-reverted for the same reason). Either way, I am pretty certain it has been resolved amicably. Having looked again, there is nothing immediately striking to an unsuspecting editor that 1RR applies here. I've tried the cache feature after hitting 'edit' whereby I typed '1RR' and 'revert' both of which found zero results. I would initially have messaged user:Clpo13 who in 2018 protected the article but he appears to have been inactive these past two months and so I am coming here. Is there any way the condition can be made more prominent? That is to say visible to any person hitting 'edit'. If there is a way of checking then I confess that I have forgotten how to do this. It may just be my preference settings as I don't use the visual feature. I appreciate any assistance here. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a banner at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) that explains the situation. --Jayron32 19:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks. Question: why may any person thinking about restoring a reverted edit less than 24 hours ago consult the talk page? Surely the caveat needs to be somewhere along his route to the action. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An editnotice is probably what you want, as it will show up prominently when editing the article. Wikipedia:Editnotice has information on how to get one added. clpo13(talk) 00:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done this. El_C 12:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clpo13, @El C, thank you both. That's this thread matter resolved. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hagia Sophia

    I've fully protected the Hagia Sophia article due to an edit war. Am signing off for the night so will leave it to the night shift to take over supervision of the article and respond to requests on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pig codes and Black codes

    I was reading an article on CNN about a Louisiana Supreme Court case involving a life sentence affirmed for a black man who stole a pair of hedge clippers back in '98. The term "Pig laws" was bandied about, and when I searched it up here, there was a redirected to Black Codes (United States). However, the term 'pig' or 'pig laws' doesn't appear anywhere in the article, and I am not finding a source that uses the terms interchangeably. How would folk suggest I proceed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jack Sebastian: You could nominate Pig laws at RfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack Sebastian, if you search google books for "black codes" and "pig laws", you'll find a number of references. Quick glance, it appears "pig laws" were a subset or specific instance of "black codes". You could add it to the article for readers hitting that redirect. Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some admin eyes

    ...on the section Talk:George_Floyd#Why_does_this_man_have_an_article?, the very title of which is offensive and really should be changed. HalfShadow there makes some pretty damn insensitive remarks, and I'm biting my tongue, and doubles down on them after being apprised of BLP discretionary sanctions. Note: HalfShadow was warned last year already, by Doug Weller, of discretionary sanctions in the AP2 area. On top of that they throw in a pretty disrespectful and at the very least uncollegial comment directed at Valereee. What HalfShadow has to say on the topic of George Floyd is revolting, and no editor with such experience should talk like that. I would like for a neutral admin to assess if DS are applicable here. I mean, I'd rather someone talk some sense into them, but I don't have much faith. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I closed that section. No good will come of it. HalfShadow is, I think, unsuited for work here. Jorm (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move. But is it enough? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick Moyes, damn, that's you on the Mont Blanc? Wow. Anyway, feel free to be uninvolved enough to take action... Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Off topic, but yeah, mad props for that achievement. I can barely climb the hill in my neighborhood.)--Jorm (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disgusting attitude. User should be cbanned. Or at least topic banned from AP2. Valeince (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drmies: Yep - I've been on top of Mont Blanc and the Matterhorn plus a few other summits, though that profile pic was on the tripoint of Mont Dolent. But, returning to the issue, personally, I would have deleted HShadow's post immediately as "wholly inappropriate" rather than bothering to responding to it. But as we're 'not censored' I'm now reluctant to delete the whole thread. I'm minded to use a cot template, titled 'not relevant' or 'off topic', which seems most appropriate. I've not checked DS issues, but feel a block for one utterly dumbass and offensive comment probably isn't right, either. Thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've archived it per WP:NOTFORUM since, as Jorm put it, nothing was going to come of it that would improve the article. I don't think this warrants a block. I haven't looked through the contribs, so maybe a TBAN would be useful if they have a pattern. Absent that, suggest they stick to the anti-vandalism work rather than starting drama on talk pages. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move. Agreed that a block for just that utterly gross insensitivity isn't quite right. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked through their contribs going back to October 2019 and don't find any other edits in AP that raise an eyebrow for me. I found one COVID related edit that isn't great. However, neither of these are a pattern for me and so as long as this disruption doesn't continue at Floyd I don't think DS/GS sanction is appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely argue against removing the section from the talk page. Sometimes, a section should exist if for no other reason than to serve as an example of what not to do in an article/discussion; I think Wugapodes' deletion was inappropriate.
    There are a ton of editors contributing to the project who - if they actually interjected their personal credos and viewpoints here, would be ban-hammered into oblivion. We have to accept that we are going to have users who are white supremacists, black supremacists, anti-Semites, pedophiles and other disgusting sorts. Yet, none of them bring to the table what HalfShadow did; it was exceedingly unprofessional, and it should be preserved as an acute example of what we are not going to allow here. Come here to edit, and leave your bent at the door. People learn differently, and often need an object example of what not to do.
    I would also submit that should HalfShadow display this behavior again, they should be efficiently and expediently shown the door and thrown bodily through it. That sort of display is corrosive to ALL of Wikipedia, and if the user cannot separate his beliefs from his editing, they have no place here. (Update: looking at this person's block log or a dozen or so block for the same thing, I think the defenestration choice should be the first considered if HalfShadow cannot get a handle on their problematic behavior) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I kind of wonder if they were just having a bad day. A lot of folks are under a lot of stress. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think racism is caused by stress usually, but I digress. Valeince (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    reasonable point —valereee (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template

    I have tried changing the title of my user page using this tag like {{DISPLAYTITLE:Abdullah AL Shohag}} several times. But never worked. I think its maybe unauthorized. If so, please make me. Right now I have this template in my user page. Thanks. A. Shohag 07:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that DISPLAYTITLE can only be used to make a few specific changes, and it's not able to change what letters are shown: "if the displayed title is copied and pasted into a wikilink, the link should point to the original page" (WP:DISPLAYTITLE). For future reference, probably WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk are better pages to ask questions to do with editing help. I hope this helps! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 08:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked this - I'm pretty sure it won't work on a user page because the element you're trying to change isn't called title, it's called something else, therefore it won't accept the request to change the "title". W.K.W.W.K...Talk 11:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DISPLAYTITLE can't be used to display a different title - it can only make stylistic alterations to the existing title such as changing the font and/or the color. This is true on any page, including mainspace.— Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ShohagS: You can only use DISPLAYTITLE to change the formatting of a title, not the actual name of the page. You can't remove the "User:" prefix from a user page, and if you want your user page to be called "User:Abdullah AL Shohag" instead of "User:ShohagS", then you'd have to change your username. Also, in the future, issues like this one would be better raised at WP:VPT. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jackmcbarn, Diannaa, Wekeepwhatwekill, and Goldenshimmer: Thanks you all. But take a look at my user page in bnwiki which perfectly does the work I want. If {{DISPLAYTITLE}} doesn't do that work, then why isnot there something else? A. Shohag 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ShohagS: Because $wgRestrictDisplayTitle is false on bnwiki, as you can see in operations/mediawiki-config, but it's true here. When that's false, it lets DISPLAYTITLE change it to whatever you want, instead of just to the same text with different formatting. It could in theory be changed to false here if there were consensus to do so, but there almost certainly is not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more information at mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle. The convention on this wiki is that the page title and page name must match.— Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Diannaa and Jackmcbarn: what if someone sets the value of $wgRestrictDisplayTitle to false customizing a different module? Will that be acceptable? A. Shohag 04:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ShohagS: What does "customizing a different module" mean? That's a sitewide setting. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be better off asking this at WP:VPT; that's where the coders hang out.— Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But if there is community consensus that displaytitle should not be used to change the actual words of a page title (including on user pages), then trying to find a technical way around this consensus is not acceptable either, even if it is possible. Simply accepting that no, your user page title is your user name and moving on to more productive areas is the solution, not customizing some module. Fram (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request by The3Kittens

    Request made by now-blocked sock, therefore unlikely to happen. Sandstein 13:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following is a unblock request by The3Kittens, who was requesting through via UTRS. Here is the request.

    "I apologize for my behavior, I understand that I have to add content networks, shows, programs and a warning message on the Chutti TV article to prevent Davey2010 to remove them, the next day, I was blocked by RickinBaltimore for making legal threats. I understand that I will not involve in legal threats and if I will do it again I will get blocked forever. Please unblock my account, my account's underlying IP address, my account's talkpage, fellow accounts TSMWCfan, TSMWCfan1, TSMWCFan2 and TSMWCfanboy3. We will understand that never involve in legal threats, vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit-warring, violating the 3RR, spamming, conflict of interest anymore. Unblock and unban all my accounts. We will only make consensus towards users. I will understand that I will only make useful contributions. I will never involve in edit-warring anymore. CLSStudent said that "Using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate uses is not allowed, as using them for illegitimate uses is called sockpuppetry." I will accept what CLSStudent said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMWCfanboy4 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "We" means all the five blocked accounts. They are The3Kittens, TSMWCfan, TSMWCfan1, TSMWCFan2 and TSMWCfanboy3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMWCfanboy4 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Majavah! It was made by The3Kittens, through UTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMWCfanboy4 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @TSMWCfanboy4: How do you know, given that you're not an administrator and only administrators have access to UTRS? – Majavah talk · edits 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Majavah: Just FYI, an editor has access to their own UTRS appeal (though not to UTRS generally). They just can't see admin-only and checkuser comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Boing! said Zebedee: I know. I was commenting on the sock that claimed that they aren't a sock and are just copying an appeal from UTRS. – Majavah talk · edits 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it was just in case you didn't :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, if I were going to sock, I would try to stay under the radar and wouldn't draw attention to my other blocked accounts in a bizarre unblock request - but perhaps I'm just being too clever for my own good.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected hacked account

    Account had been an intermittent problem for years. Blocked indef. --Jayron32 18:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    In 2015 and before this user was contributing normally before turning inactive. A few days ago the account became active again, but has only added fabricated nonsense and rubbish.

    Most likely explanation is that the account was hacked (seen it before), but I'm not sure where to report that? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that it has ever been done before like this, but perhaps the talkpage for Wikipedia:Compromised accounts? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the account for 72 hours because of the sudden spate of vandalism. If the behavior resumes, the next block can be longer or indef. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template editor privilege abuse

    Alex 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused his template editor privileges at Module:Episode table. See the discussion at Template_talk:Episode_table#Implementing_Template:Sronly where he has reverted after a fellow template editor brought up objections based on WP:TPECON and he has not found consensus for his edits (nor did he prior to the initial change, which is also required by WP:TPECON). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @MSGJ: who has blocked/unblocked him regarding edit-warring. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have support for my edits. One editor disagreeing is not a lack of consensus. I see that Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor was brought up elsewhere, so I'll point out that it is the responsibility of the reverting template editor to demonstrate their revert is not out of sheer reflex. No reason was provided for the initial revert other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, meaning that Koavf did indeed revert based on "sheer reflex"; WP:BRD was quoted in the discussion but quickly nullified with the reasons listed at WP:BRD-NOT.
    Koavf, shall I be pinging the administrators who have blocked/unblocked you twice in the past seven weeks? Or if we're dating old blocks, as you have, I'm counting 34 entries in your log. Will you be pinging them yourself? -- /Alex/21 05:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex 21, I don't think your bad faith WP:POINT-y questions will do you any favors on this noticeboard but to assume good faith, yes, please do ping whomever you think is relevant to assess your judgement or lack thereof in this discussion. I've made the report here and this shouldn't be a back-and-forth for the two of us, so I won't be posting here unless someone else requests it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, are we not here to discuss my "behaviour"? Do you not have any comments regarding the "Dispute with a fellow template editor" quote I provided you concerning your own edits? Nor the comments about consensus? Remember, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. As far as I can tell, you are the only editor who has disagreed, and you still have not provided a reason for your revert, other than that "out of sheer reflex". -- /Alex/21 05:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex 21, Alex, this is not a place for the two of us to bicker. I have made my case that you contravened WP:TPECON and that you have not done your due diligence in seeking consensus before or after your edits and that you have either not understood or willfully misconstrued a policy. I am now explicitly requesting that you stop pinging me and stop attempting to have an interpersonal conversation on this message board: that is not the function of this board. If admins need my input, they will request it here. I left this for them to assess if you are acting in accord with the requirements of a template editor. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, are you stating that I am not allowed to reply and defend myself against such a false report? I will reply with my side as I wish, it is not your right to say I cannot. Given that you are the reporting editor, my comments will naturally be initially directed towards you, especially when you include WP:POINT-y remarks about unrelated four-year-old content.
    Nevertheless, your reply is still required at the template's talkpage. -- /Alex/21 05:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex 21, I have tacitly asked you to stop pinging me in this discussion and explicitly asked you to stop pinging me. I have told you that I am only going to give my feedback if requested by an admin. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf (not pinged), then only give your feedback when requested, I'm not stopping you. You filed the report, I will be replying to you until asked a question by another editor. -- /Alex/21 06:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Returning to my own initial comment, I'll be pinging El_C and Ivanvector in regards to the above editor and their report. I believe this editor was recently blocked for contentious editing, in which a self-suggested condition of their unblocking was to discuss changes to accessibility rather than directly reverting them, especially when without reason. This latter action is what resulted in the discussion linked and the restoration of the code that was removed without reason.
    The edit history at Module:Track listing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a module I have directly edited myself) is also quite interesting; there's quite a number of edits from the editor that weren't discussed before implementing, a behaviour that this editor has reported as unacceptable. I'm not quite sure how the standard works here? If someone could explain that, I'd greatly appreciate it.
    I would also like to note that I have specifically asked the editor to discuss the content (as per a template's talk page), not the conduct (which belongs here) on the talk page, as shown here. They have sinced replied thrice ([2][3][4]), deliberately doing anything but; see my specification on what I have answered here. I am attempting to discuss the content with the editor and iron out the issues that they may have with the changes, but one cannot discuss changes and gain any form of consensus if the other editor refuses to respond. Discussions must be two-way, not just posting "answer me then I'll answer you" then refusing to do so once I comply with their request. Here's an example of them copy-pasting the same bludgeoning answer ([5][6]), despite me continuing the content discussion between their posts. -- /Alex/21 07:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AEpisode_table&type=revision&diff=971947134&oldid=971947051 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AEpisode_table&type=revision&diff=971947469&oldid=971947222 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, what seems to be the issue there? Are you linking to the diff where I ask you if you're taking credit for my compromising suggestion to you? I would like to point out to the reading administrator that the reporting editor claimed I refused to provide an alternate option[7], I responded by providing three diffs where I did quite the opposite and suggested a compromise (my response[8] and the three compromising comments [9][10][11]). They they claimed credit for my suggestions[12] and when I asked them twice[13][14] if they were doing exactly that, they refused to answer. They then claimed that my pings to them were harassment[15], but somehow, continuing to discuss conduct over content on a template's talk page after being requested not to is not. -- /Alex/21 07:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Section break

    The thread on the talk page was... not illuminating. The above is not better. Let's try another format. I have questions for each of you. Please answer them directly and briefly. Do not mention the other's conduct.

    • @Koavf: Per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged". Please
      • 1) Please briefly (no more than 1-2 sentences) explain your "good cause" for reverting.
      • 2) Was there "a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged"? If so, where, and what was its result? If not, why? (You may briefly mention the other's conduct if you answer the last question, but only if their conduct is relevant.)
    • @Alex 21: Per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "When a template editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another template editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." Your edit was reversed (rightly or wrongly). You reinstated it.
      • Where was the "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision"?

    Please respond in the below space. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • For Koavf: 1.) Visual changes to templates are supposed to have substantial consensus before they are done. This was not done here: process-wise, there should be a discussion first. 2.) There was no discussion before Alex 21's initial edit and there was ongoing discussion at Template talk:Episode table when Alex 21 reverted: he didn't wait for more than two hours to try to reach consensus before reverting to this preferred version. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Koavf:
      1) OK. That's a procedural issue. Did you have any substantive issues with the edit?
      2) There was ongoing discussion when Alex reverted your revert. However, was there any discussion before you reverted Alex's original edit?
      (Also, after you reverted Alex 21, they asked why you reverted them about two hours later, and then reverted your revert after about 16 hours (and over 3000 words between you).)
      Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Mdaniels5757, 1.) Yes, I do: this contradicts what users would expect, doesn't offer an option for hiding or displaying, and is contrary to the examples at MOS:TABLECAPTION, which assume that it's a displaying caption. In addition to the procedural issue. 2.) So, six hours after the conversation started. He is not interested in a good faith attempt at consensus and is just reverting because he prefers it. This is obviously contrary to Wikipedia:Template Editor (in addition to the original edit itself, which was also contrary to that policy). This is the problem: there is an assumption of both good judgement about edits and collegiality about objections and he is ignoring both. Plus the harassment and misuse of {{collapse top}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Koavf: OK. Re #2, I think we're talking past each other. Was there any discussion before you reverted Alex's original edit (that is, before 12:15 UTC on the 8th)? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Mdaniels5757, No. He initiated discussion after I reverted his edit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Alex 21:

    This [16] is the discussion that occurred between my starting it after the initial revert, up to my next restoration of my edit to the module. Noting that my last comment before the restoration was [c]oncerning "no obvious documentation", please don't lie., this is the point where I later collapsed the rest of the discussion [17], as the discussion provided by the opposing editor continued onwards over conduct rather than content. It is at that point that I did consider and currently still consider the end of the discussion where content talk was given more than conduct talk.

    Per WP:SILENCE, [c]onsensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). Obviously, silent consensus existed but it was clear by the initial revert and voiced response to the discussion I started that this was no longer so. However, when an editor refuses to discuss the content, it is not possible to gain any agreement from them for their opposition, so one cannot contest the opposition.

    The decision for the level of consensus was determined by: remembering from WP:CONSENSUS that [c]onsensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, that voiced agreement for the edit was given by another editor [18], and that there was no further opposition, and that the opposition from a single editor (an editor that had removed themselves from the content discussion) does not automatically mean that there is no consensus. -- /Alex/21 03:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alex 21: I feel kind of silly for this, I totally missed the the third party in that section... (In my defense, that section is larger than the module it is discussing.) Whether it meets the "clear discussion" requirement is an exercise left to the reader —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mdaniels5757, no worries, I can easily see how it could be missed! The same editor replied again today with further support [19] and a suggestion of a flag parameter can be created to allow the caption if it does not duplicate information. This is the same suggestion I've made and commented on myself thrice [20][21][22], but to no response. -- /Alex/21 03:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex 21: OK, thanks. I will make a proposal shortly. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    @Alex 21 and Koavf: OK. Thank you both for humoring me with this alternative dispute resolution service. I'm going to make a proposal and explain my reasoning.

    • 1. As to the content: we make an it an option, rather than hardcoded one way or the other. (What the default should be is something not within the scope of AN.) Given that both of you have proposed this (with different defaults), I hope there's no objection to this.
    • 2. Both of y'all deserve a WP:TROUT for the... abundant... discussion you've created. Come on. I can't decide whose fault it is. Personally, I find the tone of Koavf's comments ever-so-slightly worse than Alex's, but, on the other hand, "[Username], state your opposition to the edit. [sig]" is not a good way to open a productive discussion. In any case, both of y'all should do better.
    • 3. As to Alex 21, this report is closed with a second trout. It was 2-1 in favor of their version, and the discussion, if you squint a bit, looks enough like "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision" that I think any action would be inappropriate. That said, (1) the discussion was not particularly clear (or at all, if I'm being honest), (2) any consensus reached was quite weak, and (3) it would have been more prudent to gain another editor's opinion instead.
    • 4. We {{hat}}/{{hab}} the section on the talk page and start a new discussion on what the default should be. If both of you consent, I'd like to moderate it in some way so it's less of a shitshow than discussion to date.

    Thoughts? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1. I agree with the flagged option, as I was the initial editor to suggest this. Understood that AN is not the location to determine the default, but I agree as long as it is defaulted to not show with the option to show. Templates should cater to the majority of uses and have a case for the minority, they should not cater to the minority of uses and have a case for the majority. To do this, I would suggest using keeping |caption= as an invisible caption, with |visiblecaption= as an optional replacement; not a flag as such, but replacing |caption= with |visiblecaption= to show it. However, as stated, not the place for it, so I'm happy to discuss it elsewhere.
    • 2. Perhaps "[Username], state your opposition to the edit. [sig]" is not the best way to go, but editors need to learn that edits reverted without discussion is bad-faith editing and not at all collaborative. Per BRD, it is up to either editor to start a discussion. We'll all get along better when editors try to.
    • 3/4. If this report is closed, can we then get the template talkpage discussion closed as well, for completeness's sake? I assume that's what option 4 means with the hat/hab, which I agree with.
    -- /Alex/21 04:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mdaniels5757, In terms of dispute resolution, sounds good: thanks. In terms of Alex 21's behavior and poor judgement as a template editor, I feel like you are missing this entirely. Do you not think his behavior here is inappropriate? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koavf: I do think his behavior here is inappropriate. I also, however, think your behavior, and in particular your revert without discussion, was inappropriate (recall that per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "(if possible)", you should have "a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged", which you did not). I also don't think that WP:TPEREVOKE is on the table for Alex, given that no "pattern of obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus" has been shown. If you wish for action to be taken against Alex, what action do you believe would be appropriate with respect to Alex's conduct? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mdaniels5757, I don't have a perspective on that: I'm leaving up to admins' judgement. My goal in posting here was not a matter of dispute resolution but one of point out inappropriate behavior on the part of an editor, so if you think it's just a matter for dispute resolution and then the behavioral issues is either non-existent or doesn't merit any particular action on your part, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I just find it pretty shocking that in addition to his misuse of advanced user rights, he's also harassing me on this board as well as on the talk page and that this behavior doesn't merit any kind of action to curtail how he is acting. I figured using WP:AN for harassment would be a really big no-no, but I guess not. This just emboldens him to harass other users in the future, including on the admins' noticeboard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How I have I harassed you at this board? Pinging you and responding to you is not harassment. I am required to ping you to notify that I have responded to you in the discussion we were a part of. Asking me not to ping you is you deliberately distancing yourself from the discussion, indicating that you have withdrawn from it.
    In fact, if asking me not to do something and then me continuing to do it is considered harassment, then in the same vein, me asking you not to discuss conduct over content on a talkpage and then you continuing to do it can also be considered harassment. Per WP:HARASSMENT, harassment is "to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing"; is that not what you were doing by repeatedly ignoring my requests before I ignored yours? Be careful of boomerangs when you come to AN.
    Luckily, I'm not overly phased by your actions there, and I'm happy to continue discussing the content with you in a civil mannter, as suggested by Mdaniels. Shall we close the first discussion and start the second one about the conditions of in/visible captions? -- /Alex/21 01:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    People have been indeffed for using thank to poke opponents, although that has occurred in cases much more serious than this. Regardless of Koavf's sins, your inability to stop pinging him when requested is not a sign of collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I know you stated [r]egardless of Koavf's sins, but I do request for my own clarification, is the discussion of conduct over content on a talkpage after being asked not to also considered harassment? -- /Alex/21 01:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The action against Alex 21 would be to revoke his template editor right because aggressive reverting using that right is not acceptable. There has probably been enough noise to hide the underlying issue and I don't have the energy to investigate. Diff and the absurd demand show the problem and Alex should be aware that such a style is not compatible with an advanced right. Even if Koavf was wrong and Alex right (I have no idea about that), the correct procedure would be for Alex to not revert (assuming no emergency) and to post a polite question about why Koavf had reverted along with a polite explanation for why Alex's edit should stand. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the issue between concerning the edit goes back before even I started the discussion. Remember that per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, [a] template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged. No such good cause or prior brief discussion was provided by the opposing editor at the time. The correct procedure would have been to not revert at all at the very beginning, and go straight to discussion. -- /Alex/21 01:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that I am unable to convince you so let me express it like this. I will remove your template editor right if you use it aggressively in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Thank you for the notification. What of the opposing editor's template editor right? -- /Alex/21 01:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to have got heavy in this discussion because I see that you have done a lot of work at related modules. Nevertheless, I think the template editor right should be used only while in Pollyanna mode. I don't think it would be useful to discuss the general issue of whether Koavf should have done his revert here although I suspect the answer would be seen by investigating whether there was a clear consensus for your change before this incident. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Indeed I have; over 3,000 edits to the template and module spaces. I don't get the Pollyanna reference, but in the future, I would just simply appreciate it if the opposing editor didn't cite a guideline while also not following it themselves. Hopefully we can get to the implementation discussion soon; I've already prepared the sandbox and testcases for the discussion of how to fix the caption issue. -- /Alex/21 03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mdaniels5757, See discussion with Johnuniq below. He deliberately still doesn't get it, as far as I'm concerned. Are you saying that his behavior was acceptable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koavf: I never said his behavior was acceptable; indeed, I said that "I do think his behavior here is inappropriate". Johnuniq characterized his use of the permission as "aggressive", and I agree with that. However, your behavior was not appropriate either (and also violated Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, which you have been citing against Alex). If it were up to me (and it is not), I would still close this without action because (1) WP:TPEREVOKE is a high bar that I don't think is met and (2) if Alex's behavior is poor enough that, per WP:TPEREVOKE, his permissions should be revoked, your behavior also meets that standard (that is, I don't see a way out of this where one of you is sanctioned and the other is not). In my opinion, it is in both of your best interests to WP:DROPTHESTICK. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mdaniels5757, Okay, well thanks for providing your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for temporary topic ban suspension

    EllenCT has been blocked for a week as arbitration enforcement, and there is nothing in this discussion which resembles support to lift either of her two topic bans--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I ask that I be excluded from the topic ban invoked at [23] for the duration that I may at my own discretion discuss agricultural chemicals at [24] et seq. EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    EllenCT, I clicked at the two links and looked at the enforcement log and I don't feel that I have anywhere close to the background information necessary to understand what's going on here let alone have an opinion about whether the ban should be partially or completely repealed. Could you provide more background for those who might be like me and not know what's going on? Courtesy ping to Stephen who reverted you in the diff above and Seraphimblade as the sysop who logged the sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I've been scolded for expressing opinions about economics for many years. This is another in the same series of requests which purport that my behavior was substandard. I happen to not agree. EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't "been scolded" for expressing opinions, you have been categorically indefinitely topic banned by the community from economics. Stephen 01:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RESTRICT#EllenCT, it's a bit stronger than "scolding". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh. Sure enough. So this is not about the AE tban but a community cban (here's the ANI for anyone else interested). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Archive link without the strikethrough issues (or is that just me?): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#EllenCT continues to disrupt Economic stagnation —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And actually, it might be about both? The ban invoked (after an apparent violation of it) in the first diff was from the ANI ban I linked above; the ban preventing her from the is the AE ban. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be confused, but isn't it the AE discussion that involves chemicals, rather than the ANI economics restriction? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarekOfVulcan: Beat me to it... (also ping User:Barkeep49, bc I forgot to above) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the presentation and recent history, I would oppose lifting of any restrictions, temporary or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. We do not grant "temporary suspensions" on sanctions, and certainly not "at [the user's] discretion". The topic of that thread is explosive chemicals, not economics, and the user is perfectly capable of discussion there that does not mention or allude to economics, broadly construed. And if they don't wish to discuss the explosive chemicals without mentioning or alluding to economics, they can avoid the thread entirely. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a separate AE ban, she linked the wrong one, which would prevent her from participating. Not that this changes anything you said, but there is a link to the AE ban above as well, so there is in fact a different ban stopping her that isn't economics related. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very well; she is certainly capable of discussing the explosive chemicals without also "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to" them. If she does not wish to discuss the chemicals within those restrictions, she can avoid the thread entirely. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          @Softlavender: By my reading of Special:Diff/731962235, she's prohibited from
          1) "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors"
          "as well as"
          2) "the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not alter my points, and if you read the entire AE, it's clear the motivations/aspersions part was always about those topics. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or is your issue the fact that I simply copypasted rather than interpolating the word "or" instead of "as well as"? I thought about doing that, but I figured that any reasonable person would know that the quoted sanction applies to either of those items, not just both at once. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we're !voting now: I don't know the amount of time that should pass between an editor's violation of sanctions and loosening sanctions on that editor. I think that it should be longer than six hours. Oppose. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The editor is, among other things, topic banned from "agricultural chemicals, broadly construed", and nothing in her editing behavior, which I consider tendentious, leads me to conclude that the restriction should be eased. The Beirut explosion was caused by an agricultural chemical. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cullen328, where do you find such a restriction? If there is one, it should definitely be listed on the appropriate sanctions page. Given this trainwreck of an AN filing, and the lack of full or neutral disclosure, and given recent behavior noted by others, this editor is skating close to further sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Softlavender, the restriction can be found in the AE archives at 17:28, 28 July 2016 when Seraphimblade closed a thread called "David Tornheim", saying "EllenCT is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed." David Tornheim was also sanctioned and Jusdafax was warned. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi again Cullen328, that restriction is not "agricultural chemicals, broadly construed", it is rather "the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to" such. Seraphimblade can confirm if need be. And the restriction needs to be logged in the appropriate sanctions log. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a query, isn't the Jimbo talk page generally seen as a TBAN free zone? That is how it was always and we shouldn't "arbitrarily" enforce it. If someone is posting just on that one page which doesn't impact the encyclopedia, then I don't get the harm in any event but we should clarify the rules for the talk page because most people are under the assumption that the talk page is where TBAN folks can go without fear of getting sanctioned, at least that is how it has been in the past. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose User needs to show the ability to edit constructively and without incivil conflict in other areas before removal of a TBAN (or IBAN) ca be contemplated. I think 6 months is generally the minimum. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I was asked, the AE topic ban that I imposed was indeed a prohibition from "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed." The primary concern at the AE request was EllenCT's propensity to characterize disagreement with her as "astroturfing", without any evidence of such aside from the fact that someone had taken a contrary position. The topic ban is not from discussing the subject at all outside of that, though if further disruption is occurring it certainly can be broadened to a full topic ban from the area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and since it seems to have come up—yes, both AE topic bans and community topic bans apply on Jimbo's talk page. The only exception is if the editor is actually appealing the sanction to Jimbo, as he does at least in theory retain the authority to overturn them, but Jimbo's talk page is not a free-for-all area for otherwise restricted editors to discuss things a topic ban otherwise prohibits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional violation?

    In the diff EllenCT linked to above (Special:Diff/972070554), her edit replying to Newyorkbrad was reverted as a TBAN violation at 00:43 UTC. At 01:01 UTC, she filed this request linking to it (so she was definitely aware of the reversion). As noted by Softlavender above, she violated her restriction again at 01:48 UTC, posting essentially the same content. Should any action (other than the declination of her request) be taken? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think not. A TBAN can be a shock to the system. Just firmly reaffirming the TBAN conditions should do it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    EllenCT is still disrupting the community, now on her usertalk page

    I'd like to draw the community's attention to this endless arguing: User talk:EllenCT#August 2020. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Permission error creating a redirect

    (non-admin closure) No action required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please create a redirect from 🧑👩👨📷📺 to Person, woman, man, camera, TV. I'm getting a permission error trying to do so. Thank you. Komischn (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No offense, but that's a dumb redirect.  Not done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I see a need for this redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone types that into the search box I'll eat my hat. Which is handy, as my hat is made of sausages. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a dumb redirect, but so is the whole issue. Komischn (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:JohnRichardSmith666

    I am not sure, but is this a continuation of a banned account somewhere? Seems rather suspect to me. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The draft he has created contains all kinds of BLP violations - seems to be an attack page.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I read through that, was part of the concern I had for reporting here. Govvy (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know who he is a potential sock of? If so, let us know so we can see if WP:DUCK applies. If not then try at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 15:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea, but I am very suspicious of the type of user that creates a draft like that and thought it prudent to post here, thinking maybe one of the admins might notice something. Nothing else I can think of or do. Govvy (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This would likely be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90, a recurring self-promoter (or someone closely involved in some social media drama). The case is stale, but seems to be re-activated after a longer break. Callum Precious was a previously-deleted article. Anyway, blocked the account as likely sock and deleted the draft due to serious WP:BLP concerns (and as sock-created, mostly nonsensical and/or private content). On a sidenote, putting controversial WP:BLP content into Wikipedia with "citation needed" tags is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for the report. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've G10'd the draft anyway - doing more digging there is no reason for this to remain up other than to bully/attack a troubled minor. I think there may be some IRL links to what's going on here, but that's not any of our business at this time. Ed talk! 17:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow . Put both on my watchlist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dam, that went a fair bit deeper than I thought. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Slate Star Codex

    There has already been multiple admin interventions on this entry to block name mentioning. Under whatever disguises and trickery.

    Now it is being done again, with yet a new trickery method.

    [[28]]

    Please someone step in, remove those histories, and warn the infraction lovers...

    Thanks a lot. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you link to the past history of the problem? This looks like nitpicking over the formatting of a name from my view of the link you provided. Are there prior AN or ANI reports on this issue so we can review the history of which you speak? --Jayron32 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32, it was a contentious dispute over whether the real name of the blog's author should be mentioned in the article; see Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#Last_name, also this diff. Previous talk page entries that mention the full name have been revdel'd in the Talk and article history, Barkeep49, GeneralNotability, and King of Hearts have all recently performed revdel on the Talk page and Enterprisey on the article page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the summary. Perhaps one of them should continue to provide administrative support in this, since they've been dealing with it all along, and it's the sort of nuanced thing that most admins aren't going to be familiar with... I'll defer to them. --Jayron32 18:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The name behind has not been a secret per se but neither has it been published on a site of Wikipedia's (or New York Times) scale. And there is a clear request from author not to do it which means a lot, absent other forms of consensus, according to WP:BLP. There are a lot of nuances to this issue, as David Gerard rightly points out on the talk page. I had taken this article off my watchlist as I was no longer following developments and did not think I could do a fair job of knowing when the tools would be in line with BLP or out of line with other core policies. So beyond adding a BLP DS notice to talk page, I am declining to exercise my administrative discretion and powers with that article at this moment. I think this might be best addressed at BLPN given the intertwining of behavior and content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very contentious, and the claim here is how to list a reference to a relevant RS. I suggest reading the talk page. And keeping in mind that it's an off-wiki cause celebre, with the subject of the article making arguably factually incorrect claims about his own actions - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion opened at WP:BLPN#Slate Star Codex. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins needed for Arbitration Enforcement

    Arbitration Enforcement is in need of additional administrators to review and respond to complaints. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bunch of files in Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming

    Jonteemil added about 138 files to Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming with double extensions. (and a few that are named like "Company SVG logo.svg")

    Unlike Commons, Wikipedia:File names doesn't list double extensions as a reason for renaming. It would probably not be very controversial, but.. it's not in the guideline and I don't know how long adding it may take. In the meantime, the category is very difficult to navigate.

    From the admins I ask one the following:

    • A rough indication of how long it'll take to change the guideline, and this being a period of less than a week OR
    • Support from several admins to carry out the about 138 rename requests for files with double extensions, including/excluding the "Company SVG logo.svg" cases (this will take a while) OR
    • Support from several admins to decline them all pending a guideline change. (this could be done quickly with little effort) I have already backed up the move links at User:Alexis Jazz/Double extension links so the moves could be done after the guideline has changed.

    I rather wouldn't be stuck with a maintenance category that's difficult to navigate. I also don't want to lose my file mover rights, which is why I'm asking admins. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Btw, as the list is easier to work from, I'd remove the rename template exactly the same way from those 138 files, whether they get moved or not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexis Jazz: I think this situation is covered by WP:FNC#5. Double extensions are obvious errors that cause confusion as to the actual format of the file, so I'd be surprised if there was much controversy in renaming them. The "Company SVG logo.svg" naming style is context dependant. If there's no information in the title, it's probably okay to move per WP:FNC#2, but if it has the company name and states that it's a logo, there's enough information that it probably should not be moved per WP:FMNN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: If it's covered by WP:FNC#5 that would be fine. (I will await some more comments to confirm if that's the generally held opinion)) They don't necessarily cause confusion over the actual format though, for example File:Back from the Grave, Volume 4 (LP).JPEG.jpg. SVG logo examples: File:FeldaUnitedSVGlogo.svg, File:Free Geek Logo SVG.svg and File:Health Care Property Investors SVG Logo.svg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay, that's not so obvious then. I think the ".JPEG.jpg" may be worth renaming especially if they're recent uploads, but a scan of the category suggests none of the files look badly named enough to require immediate renames. I don't know much about the file namespace, so I'll bow out here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza Sky Geeks

    For the background, see the discussion here. This page was deleted by user Deb yesterday. Then, after I asked, the article was restored to a version from 2018 and immediately (automatically?) sent to "Articles for Creation" where the nomination was denied. Now it exists as a draft here: Draft:Gaza Sky Geeks Problem is that I and other editors had worked on the article significantly since 2018 and all those revisions are lost. I believe my last edits to it was in July this year and it was in a much better shape than this draft. So can some administrator kindly restore the latest version of the page somehow? ImTheIP (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I merged the histories if only to stop the parallel history problem from getting worse. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wug· - As the deleting admin, I should have been informed about this before the later, more promotional versions were restored. Now the draft is back to what it was like when it was deleted as G11. Deb (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Move: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinkplil to the previous label

    Boomerang, OP has been CU-blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    "BLM" open activist user "Missvain" (Missvain) is making his cheat moves for merely revenge and political biased actions. --Sinkplil (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    She has now moved it to the master. This can be closed, unless action is required regarding the aspersions in this filing. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Infinite IP blocks?

    I notice that we have some infinite IP blocks, some dating back to 2006, infinite IP blocks. I would hope that we would not need to set blocks for longer than five years. I think that we should remove any infinite IP block that is older than five years, and convert any IP block to a timed block if it is less than five years. It is of zero issue to reblock any IP address that re-abuses for another five years. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's consensus that indefinite IP blocks are generally inappropriate, serve no meaningful purpose to the project, and should be lifted, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 158#Proposal about some indefinite IP blocks. tl;dr for the non-technically inclined: IPs can and do change, so the same person that was vandalizing Wikipedia 5+ years ago certainly isn't at that same IP anymore. Also, things have changed in the past few years; we now have not one, but two bots identifying and blocking open proxies. -FASTILY 03:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a list which includes IP ownership information at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips. It used to be worse, a few different people have gone through some of the oldest ones and cleaned them up. Though, I'm not sure why we're accumulating so many new indef blocks on individual IPv6 addresses... ST47 (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably misclicks. Twinkle defaults to indef blocks for certain rationales ("spam only", "vandalism only", etc). Twinkle (and other semi-automated tools) probably shouldn't allow people to indefinitely block IP addresses. I hate confirmation prompts, but MediaWiki should probably ask for confirmation, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle doesn't ever default to indef for an IP; if that's the case, it's a bug. I agree that it should just prevent it from being manually selected, though; that's an easy change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually check that list once a year, and leave a message on this thread reminding all admins to go through that list and search for indefinite IP blocks by their username. Many times, an admin will do this accidentally using Twinkle or another semi-automated tool and where they accidentally left the duration set to "indefinite". If they shouldn't be there, they should be reduced to a definite duration. If they should be there, the block reason should have an explanation as to why. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Oshwah. I generally don't overly pay attention to long term blocks here, more focusing elsewhere. I know that at meta and enWS that we are down to none, though note that the circumstances are different. I also know that when I was doing stewardry we stopped doing infinite blocks on IPs and the consequences at places has not been catastrophic. IMNSHO it should only be stepwise to infinite IP blocks, not the prime initial response. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason we should not now remove all indefinitely IP blocks imposed more than three years ago, and to convert all indefinitely IP blocks imposed less than three years ago into three-year blocks?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes complete sense to me, I don't see why an IP should have an indef at this point. Edit: Looking at the list, I do have a caveat, some of these are blocked proxies, which I would think need to remain in place. A few look to be LTA socks that were ranged blocked as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a discussion last year that unblocked all indef'd IPs from before 2009, handled by a bot. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have any data on how many of those IPs are now re-blocked? Or have contributed? Perhaps we can release another tranche of the old infinite blocks. –xenotalk 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through 2 or 3 thousand in the block log and didn't see any marked by the mark blocked gadget. 2009 was chosen as it was essentially the toggle point; there were maybe a couple hundred total from 2009 and later, compared to ~20,000 before 2009. Per Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs there were 126, roughly a fifth of which were from the last year. Many of those have been undone​. That is, the scale is entirely different, I'm not sure there's a "tranche" left to go through! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A number (indeed, the majority) of those are proxies, TOR, webhosts, self-requested blocks via OTRS, and more importantly Oversight blocks. Why would you want to be removing them? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought it is quite uncommon for IPs to stay at the same location for years. If I remember correctly, open proxies very rarely live longer than 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Only 2 are oversight blocks - I agree they should not be modified except by oversight team.
      169.241.10.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked by request of school district administration in 2006. I modified it in 2009 and wrote 'softblock' in the log summary but set it a hard block - I'm not sure which I meant to do or is appropriate now, 11 years later. Anyone can modify that one as they see fit. –xenotalk 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Black Kite: I am not saying that there are not legitimate blocks among that lot, I am saying that there will be illegitimate blocks in that range. To me that is contrary to our blocking policy. I also know that internet-wise that since those blocks have been in place much has changed in a global WMF system, tools, bots, etc., even IPv6. With eyes wide open we should be removing the many blocks with review as required, and where there is problem we will be (re-)imposing blocks. I just would just prefer long-term blocks to have an expiry date, not be set and forget. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user U1Quattro

    User:U1Quattro has a long long history of conflicts here at WP. Recently they nominated some articles for deletion which no one noticed until after an article was turned into a redirect. Me and another editor, User:Davey2010 proceeded to add sources to the articles in question (Isuzu Forward and Isuzu Giga). U1Quattro, however, decided that this was unacceptable and began relisting, tag bombing, and generally showing that they are not able to function here. Basic things like calling other users "idiots" are troubling, but I am more worried about the users refusal to engage in discussion. When reverted, they always double down. After some prodding, U1Quattro will sometimes post on a talkpage, but never without first re-reverting. CF TVR Cerbera, Maserati Granturismo.

    The user has several IBANs with a number of other users already, but understands the rules here at Wikipedia well enough to usually stop shy of anything getting a more severe reprisal. The user loves starting ANIs at the drop of a hat. Most recently this one, which led to more IBAN activity. On their user page they state the following:

    You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key.

    Not a good attitude to a collaborative project IMHO. Personally I do try to steer clear of this user because it is very stressful to interact with them, but this year U1Quattro has begun editing articles on old Japanese commercial vehicles which is an area of interest of mine.

    The user is a self-proclaimed deletionist but often deletes things indiscriminately. Sometimes they introduce errors through haste or carelessness. As an example, here is one set of troubling edits laid out as I attempted to get U1Quattro to own their errors and apologize for sloppy editing (introducing factual error: changing the meaning of a sentence not because they disagreed with it or because it was disputed but just through sloppiness). As usual, they responded aggressively and will not own their mistakes. At TVR Cerbera U1Quattro changed the classification of the car, a question which does not have a clear answer. There are tons of sources that support A, B, or both A and B in this question, and so it is deserving of a discussion. I reverted, citing WP:BRD, but naturally U1Quattro re- and then re-reverted.

    Anyhow, any user can change and I had sort of been expecting U1Quattro to mellow out over the years, but they are just as strident, combative, and generally unpleasant to deal with as they have always been. I am not sure if I ought to ping some of the many other users with which U1Quattro has had disagreements with in the past; please advise. This ANI post is, btw, done reluctantly and after long consideration as U1Quattro has thus far succeeded in pushing out a number of users with whom he has argued with, but it is becoming a bit tough to do good work as of late.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There are signs of just generally lazy editing, many of these AfD's boil down for me to "article quality bad, delete lol" and they very rarely produce many valid specific criteria for deletion. Incivility does appear to be a genuine concern here and, as noted, their behaviour hasn't changed much past being rather hostile and oftentimes defensive from what I can tell. Ed talk! 05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: First of all, I don't have several IBANs as OP claims here. I only have one ongoing IBAN with a user. Second of all, Davey2010 has started this mess by the use of offensive language and causing disruption. Instances can be seen here, here, here and here so I'm not the only one to blame over here for behavourial outbursts. The articles were nominated for deletion per WP:GNG and they still cite a majority of manufacturer sources which is something against WP:RELIABILITY. Third of all, as far as TVR Cerbera goes, the OP claims that there are "several" sources that call that a sports car but so far I have seen none. I, however, added the sources which call it a grand tourer. Fourth, about my user page, that is my personal name space. I can write what I want there, I don't think there is a need to point that out. Fifth, about Hino Ranger, I had already notified this user that if they have corrected the errors then it is fine by me. I don't see any issues with that neither I see a need to apologise over a petty mistake. I'm not the only one to blame here simply put, there are others who have been at fault too including the OP.U1 quattro TALK 06:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Actually no, You started this mess by reverting the article back to a redirect even tho it was sourced ... Sure you might of disagreed with the sources used however your next option would've then been AFD again. You also started all of this by edit warring with various people.....
    As for offensive language - Sure I'll give you the first one but other than that I've remained calm and patient throughout.
    Something quite clearly needs to be done here with this user. –Davey2010Talk 11:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • U1Quattro may well be a productive editor; I haven't seen any evidence of it but that's partly because the most eye-catching feature of this editor is the slew of fights they get in. I see now that I blocked them a while ago for violating an iBan. Here is one from this year, a Floquenbeam block, which U1Quattro tries to blame on the other party. What is noteworthy in all these is the "OH ITS NOT ME ITS THEM" attitude, which contrasts nicely with last month's "The admins have the right to tell you and they told you to stop. So stop and STFU." And that user page is just asinine, completely unbecoming of someone who wants to work in a collaborative effort. Yes, that one comment by Davey wasn't great, but that's not blockable--though Davey knows I don't always appreciate their language. But while I have no intimate knowledge of the amount of disruption caused by the edits that this discussion started with, they warrant investigation, as does the attitude. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user should be community-banned. What they write on their user page alone - "You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key" - indicates that they are not temperamentally suited to participating in a collaborative project. Their block record confirms that impression. Sandstein 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sandstein, I wonder if it's later in the day where you are, if the sun of human kindness has already sunk; for me the day is still fresh and young, the cup half-full and all that, but I know that's just my silly optimism. Thank you--you are right. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where I am it's late in the afternoon on a hot summer's day and I'm sitting in a shady garden just having opened a can of cold beer (the first today; maybe not the last), but I still can't find enough kindness in me to say that Sandstein is wrong, especially given U1Quattro's outburst here, which shows a total lack of self-awareness. Who knows, maybe without this editor cars will drop off the list of topic areas, like professional wrestling and hurricanes, that seem to a non-fanatic to be uncontroversial but actually keep generating drama. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Drmies the statement about the admins was said to a user who was disruptive as well as aggressive. I don't say that I'm not at fault in the disputes I get in. The other party is as equally responsible as me. Which is exactly what happened during that AN3 discussion as well as over Isuzu Giga which you have pointed out.U1 quattro TALK 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering Fram and Phil Bridger's comments above, U1Quattro, I have an idea, and I wish you'd had that idea too: why not start by scrapping, on your user page, everything between "As a human" and "not welcome"? Your career is dangling by a thread here, and surely we can't all be completely wrong and you the only one who's right. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • U1 - I'm not at all equally responsible for this no where near and to say I am is yet again taking the "Blaming others" approach, Sure I could've saved us the edit warring and done the RFC myself however given I'm not the one who had a problem with the image I sort of saw it as being pointless. Obviously you're aware of WP:BRD too. –Davey2010Talk 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never claimed that I'm always right. Neither here, nor anywhere else. I have pointed out that other parties are as responsible as me for starting the dispute Drmies. The sense of humour thing has nothing to do with collaborative effort as discussed by Phil and Sandstein. I have, however, made some changes to the user page.U1 quattro TALK 18:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A note: somehow or other this discussion drifted away without any sanction for U1Quattro at all. That was unfortunate. Given that they continually get in conflict with a rotating cast of other editors, I would like to suggest that a long enforced break would be beneficial to the project. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see that, JBL--it shouldn't have just disappeared. There was a clear consensus for an iBan, for starters. Let's hope that there's a couple admins around who will close this properly, no matter what the outcome. I'm thinking that a three-month block would be a good start. They made a few minor changes to their user page, so I'll forgo calling for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please. Or a change in behavior, that would be just as nice. As it stands, U1Quattro is doubling down at TVR Cerbera and being allowed to continue exactly the sort of behavior that so many find problematic. The problem isn't so much what the user page states but that it perfectly expresses not only how U1Quattro feels about other editors but also how they edit. How many editors have to chime in before there is an administrative response? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Again the issue is being about the same page about which the OP claims is a sports car while they have failed to present any sources that state it is a sports car. They used the undo button when I was trying to add the source and still did not bother with adding the sources when they had started a talkpage discussion. I had added the sources which supported what I had said. This behaviour by the OP shows that they are just as responsible as me for the disruption at TVR Cerbera.U1 quattro TALK 01:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      they are just as responsible as me for the disruption is not an acceptable standard. If you are just as responsible as another user for disruption, both you and the other user risk sanctions. If you are repeatedly just as responsible for disruption as another user, especially multiple other users, you risk serious sanctions. The acceptable standard is: complying with WP:PAGs, regardless of what another user does. Lev!vich 01:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If the other user is responsible then they should also be sanctioned instead of me taking all the blame for the disruption caused. If we take TVR Cerbera as an example, the edit warring was started by OP and they deserve equal sanction for violating WP:3RR.U1 quattro TALK 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles

    Yesterday I approached S Marshall about draftifying an old article which had been created in 2016 and whose original author is no longer active. In our discussion, it came out that they plan to draftify up to 1200 more similar articles based on a consensus dated from July 2017, which had never actually been implemented.

    In August 2017, the community extended G13 to cover all draft articles that have not been edited in six months, regardless of whether they went through the AfC process. This means that these 1200 articles, if moved to draftspace, will languish for six months and then be summarily deleted. I don't believe that this was the intent of the July decision.

    WP:DRAFTIFY says that moving articles to draft space is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As the changes to draftspace in August 2017 made the July 2017 decision an effective deletion of these articles, I propose that the decision to draftify them all be revisited, and these 1200 articles be dealt with through the deletion process in some form, either individually or en masse.

    Here are a couple of options that I can think of:

    • Bring back the X2 CSD criteria and use that instead, at least for the obviously uncontroversial ones;
    • Tag them all for proposed deletion (ideally with a method to deal with anyone who reverts them all just to make a point);
    • Use the AfD process as usual, handling uncontested nominations as expired prods.

    Other editors more familiar with the history of the content translation discussions will surely have other ideas, and those are most welcome. – bradv🍁 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mz7 ok....got it. I move for X2 speedy deletion. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 18:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bradv has a point that draftify doesn't mean what it did when this was determined. Also, though I may be being a bit glib since I've admittedly not closely examined that massive old discussion, I don't see the urgency that would necessitate drafti-deleting them en masse. Restrictions have been placed on the content translation tool, and we're just left with these 1200 possibly non-notable and/or sub-par articles. 1200 sounds like a lot until you realize that's the normal number of new articles created every couple days here, so it doesn't seem like an "it's just too much work to handle them individually" issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, it seems that after three years, interest in cleaning up the mess created by the poorly rolled-out content translation tool has diminished considerably. I would like to begin by thanking S Marshall for their continued efforts in this area. However, I also think that this discussion to revisit the 2017 decision to draftify the 1200 articles on that list is reasonable. It seems to me that the simplest solution at this stage is to use WP:PROD in lieu of draftifying. I'm not sure we need to do the PROD-tagging en masse. As I understand it, S Marshall has been going through the list somewhat organically and individually moving them to draft space; I think a reasonable alternative is to simply use WP:PROD instead of moving to draft space. Mz7 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bradv, Fixing them is an option. But they can't really be left in mainspace and if can be bothered to fix them then why should we care? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that they can't be left in mainspace, nor do I have an opinion on whether they should. But if the idea here is that we can dump them in draftspace and let people work on them, that won't work. It probably wouldn't have worked in 2017 either, before the G13 expansion, but it definitely won't work now. – bradv🍁 17:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole backlog attracts a lot of attention from those who want to decide how someone else should fix it. It doesn't get much attention from people who want to muck in and fix it.
      I shan't be using PROD. I've tried, and what happens is, the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD; and that's a set of interactions that makes me tired and demotivated. Mz7 is welcome to PROD them all and then deal with the deproddings.
      Those of you who want to change how I deal with it: please come up with a suggestion that you, personally, are willing to implement. Or else leave it to me, in which case, please just let me do it this way.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD — isn't that the deletion process working exactly as it should? It sounds like you are saying you are moving these to draft because you don't want to deal with deleting them through the usual channels, but WP:DRAFTIFY is explicitly not supposed to be used like this. If you're feeling tired and demotivated by this task, take a step back from it; there is no deadline. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I have taken a break from it. I didn't edit at all in 2018, and then I came back in 2019 to find that nobody had done any work on the backlog in my absence. The issue is that we're now four years after the WMF's stupidity created this issue in the first place, and there are BLPs among these articles, and they do contain mistranslations. Please, please read the whole discussion with an open mind, reflect on it, and understand the whole problem in context before opining that it's fine to leave these in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 21:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Change to CheckUser team

    Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of SQL (talk · contribs) have been restored.

    Katietalk 19:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change to CheckUser team

    Arbitration motion regarding Climate change

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The restriction imposed on Hipocrite (talk · contribs) by Remedy 14 of the Climate change case ("Hypocrite topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Climate change

    Backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection...

    Top of the morning to you all; some help over there would be appreciated. Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of patroller right

    Hi admins, can I ask if someone can remove my patroller right. I haven't used it in god knows how long, and probably wont use it in the near future. Thanks Nightfury 11:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nightfury: just to be sure, you no longer want the "new page reviewer" or the "pending changes reviewer" flag? Salvio 11:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Salvio giuliano New page reviewer please. Nightfury 11:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nightfury:  Done. Salvio 11:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Recreation of a deleted shortcut

    Someone has taken it upon themselves to recreate an already deleted shortcut, literally one week after it was deleted. I suspect someone wants to bludgeon the process. I request this request be closed down as being done too soon (yes I know consensus can change, but in one week? ) and that this redirect be protected from being re-created for the time being. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 11:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=972502862"