Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	9	15	24
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	4	20	24
AfD	0	0	0	31	31

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 160 sockpuppet investigations
• 31 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 4 Candidates for history merging
• 23 requests for RD1 redaction
• 20 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 17 requested closures
• 152 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 25 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (33 out of 7760 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) 2024-05-28 13:40 2025-03-12 13:45 move Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP 2 weeks for RM discussion to run its course Robertsky 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes 2024-05-28 13:08 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR Robertsky Draft:Palestinian civilian involvement in the October 7th attacks 2024-05-28 12:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Anti-BDS laws 2024-05-28 01:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5) 2024-05-28 01:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Tel al-Sultan airstikes 2024-05-28 01:11 indefinite edit Move warring: Move requests only from this point on El C Human wave attack 2024-05-27 22:16 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Tel al-Sultan 2024-05-27 22:10 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Karla Sofía Gascón 2024-05-27 21:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Tel al-Sultan airstrikes 2024-05-27 21:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Asian News International 2024-05-27 21:10 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Tel al-Sultan massacre 2024-05-27 21:10 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Rujm el-Hiri 2024-05-27 11:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Far-right politics in Israel 2024-05-27 04:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Twitter Files 2024-05-27 04:05 2025-05-27 04:05 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case History of the Jews in Gaza City 2024-05-27 02:45 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Accusations of United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-27 02:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish List of equipment of the Pakistan Army 2024-05-26 20:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:IPA Ymblanter Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-05-26 14:11 indefinite move Move warring Ivanvector Meritt North 2024-05-26 14:00 2024-06-02 14:00 edit,move persistent removal of AFD template while AFD discussion is open Bearcat User talk:46.35.177.94 2024-05-26 13:51 2026-03-29 00:00 edit,move Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:87.209.46.135 2024-05-25 18:46 2024-06-24 00:00 edit,move Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Kourage Beatz 2024-05-25 17:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names Liz Kaimla 2024-05-25 16:04 2024-06-25 16:04 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi Stew Peters 2024-05-25 07:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:COVIDCT, WP:ARBPS, WP:AP2, WP:PIA, WP:ARBEE, et cetera, etc. El C Evil Morty 2024-05-25 02:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine 2024-05-24 22:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP Daniel Case Combat Vehicle 90 2024-05-24 22:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Dada AsTra 2024-05-24 21:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Ralston College 2024-05-24 21:42 2025-05-24 21:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing RegentsPark FC Barcelona 2024-05-24 21:23 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:Favonian/Archive 58 2024-05-24 18:14 indefinite edit,move Favonian User talk:Favonian/Archive 57 2024-05-24 18:13 indefinite edit,move Favonian

Requesting RfC be re-closed

An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened re-closed.

• The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([1][2]) or MOS:WEASEL ([3]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.

• Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.

• Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([4][5]) but never got a response.

• • It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").

• • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([6][7]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([8][9]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).

Vote counts

Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.") Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below. Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..." Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE." Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS" @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous) Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE" Vice regent, said "Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views".

What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says, Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away. The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness.

VR _talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing to request to re-close.VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog." Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:

"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."

And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein ^talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re-open Re-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support work[-ing] together toward a proposal that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR _talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

• "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

  ”

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

• "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

• "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

• "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

• "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

• "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR _talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:

• SB's version misrepresenting the sources that say MEK is a cult (concern raised during RfC)
• SB's weasel wording equating scholarly sources to newspaper op-eds (raised during RfC[10]). Academic consensus is clear that MEK is a cult. Even SB admitted that no source dismisses the cult claim.

Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR _talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR _talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR _talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR _talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome — what? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.

With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.

So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your "sorry" (which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago: the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.

With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.

If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.

I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.

But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your "Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources?" (I also believe this should be taken really more seriously now). --Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:

• ”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”

• "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.

• "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."

• "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."

• "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."

The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([13][14]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.VR _talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR _talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent in response to your poins:

1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:

"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

International Policy Digest

"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."

National Interest

"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

Arab News

All three sources support "while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult", so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.

2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to what you said, this version is truely violating NPOV (explained mutliple times). Anyway, this long wall of text does not discredit the important points raised by experienced users here. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way, "(one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented". LOL! Is it what you understand from NPOV? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice re: would we need a new admin?

• Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• عمرو_بن_كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as Amr ibn Kulthoum}}
• Fiveby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm trying to stay uninvolved at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, which is fully protected with a lead that has disputed content. Discussion is stalling out over making any changes whatsoever. I am thinking it might help break the logjam if the lead is stripped of all disputed content, then consensus formed to add stuff back in per ONUS. If I suggest this and delete from the lead everything at least X# editors object to, have I made myself involved? I'm the only admin working there, so unless someone else is willing to come in as an admin, I don't want to become involved. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, That is an unusual approach, and its a pretty short lead anyway, I think if you removed the controversial content you'd have no lead. Your course of action could work, but you would need to get consensus to do so, otherwise that's clearly making you involved. I've put the article on my watchlist, and take a look to see what can be done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, hi there - sorry, I started trying to moderate that talk page, then work got too full on. Thanks for picking up the baton. I think that Ed Johnston has some familiarity with the dispute. FWIW, I agree that a stripped back, basic, uncontroversial lead might be a good starting point. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bollocks - misfired my ping to EdJohnston, sorry. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage User:Valereee to keep trying to mediate at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. If possible they should try to avoid editing the article directly. If you think the lead ought to be shortened, offer the 'before' and 'after' versions for review on the talk page and ask for editors to vote. If you want an outside admin to take a look at a specific question you could ping me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye, thanks, all. I'll hang in as long as Levivich hangs in. :) —valereee (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the sales pitch needs work, val. Maybe something like this:

HEY! ADMIN AND EXPERIENCED EDITORS! You've been working hard, you deserve a break! Come and relax at sunny Syrian Kurdistan, where the conversation is ample and you're sure to make new friends. You can read a book (or twenty, there's quite a few to get through), have a drink (or twenty), or, for those seeking something more adventurous, explore the Holy Walls of Text in the ancient Talk Page Archives. There's something for everyone at Syrian Kurdistan! Visit today! Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sold! El_C 17:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, CaptainEek, Girth Summit, EdJohnston, ANYONE. I've already p-blocked two editors from this talk who were POV-pushing. There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments. I am a bit loathe to myself block the last editor who is arguing that side because frankly it feels like one admin throwing too much weight around. Could someone else please take a look in hopes that we can finally make incremental progress here? Or could someone else please come in as an editor and weigh in on the sourcing/content dispute? Or tell me to turn into an editor, and you can become the admin? Tag, you're it! Also someone should give Levivich a goddamn knighthood. —valereee (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added pagelinks for Syrian Kurdistan at the top of this thread. I've also included userlinks for the two people that got partial blocks from the talk page, as well as User:Supreme Deliciousness who I guess may be the person that Valereee thinks is making 'stale POV-pushing arguments'. The dispute at Syrian Kurdistan has been running for a long time, and at some point, I think the interested editors ought to organize their own dispute resolution. When this doesn't happen and the matter falls to the admins to resolve, there is a risk of a random or quirky outcome, since they usually don't know the content. The use of partial blocks from talk is an idea I haven't seen before though I see the logic of it. If you want a more 'classic' way of handling the situation from an admin standpoint you could issue restrictions under WP:GS/SCW to the editors you believe aren't being cooperative and then those bans could get reviewed at WP:AN. But personally I don't object to the partial blocks from Talk. In the past, messy cases like this have sometimes gone to Arbcom, but I see that outcome as a failure by admins collectively to use strong enough measures to deal with things that have run for a long time without resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I don't care about classic but I'd love any approach that works better! :) I really wanted to avoid issuing topic bans. I dislike them and I think they're traps. But the recent RMs make me think that's probably what's going to end up being needed. The two editors I p-blocked just moved on to other contentious articles about the Syrian civil war. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm new to this topic area and don't have all the (many, probably hundreds) of pages watchlisted but after doing some digging I have concerns about editing on articles well beyond Syrian Kurdistan and even those recent SK-related RMs, into other (non-Syrian) Kurdish-related articles. I think we need to extend the WP:GS/SCW to include all of "Kurdistan" and anything related to Kurds (I believe El C presciently suggested this some time ago). In addition, let's have the community look again at some of the editing that's been going on, particularly since the last ANI reports. We haven't really had a "clean" presentation of the POV-pushing evidence, separate from incivility/bludgeoning issues. Now that the latter is actually under control, the former becomes clearer. I don't like TBANs either, and originally I was thinking someone should file an arbcom case after the new year, but this won't keep until then. There is ongoing removal of Kurdish-related content from so many articles (happening today, yesterday, the day before) that I think we need some kind of "emergency injunction". So I think I'm going to collect some recent diffs and open a thread here and see where that gets us. At least the community can take one more crack at it and if that doesn't resolve the disruption, then I guess Arbcom? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the GS are so rarely used for actual problems that I doubt it’d make a difference. From what I remember of the logs, most usage of GS is spammers / trolls / obvious disputes, or your typical page protection. I doubt it would help with disputes like this. GS is barely effective as it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea what's happening right now as I've yet to review this thread's contents beyond the comment directly above where I was pinged, so this is a general statement only: expanding the SCW GS is problematic because of the narrow timeframe and geography — Kurds in Iran, for example, wouldn't really fit. The reason GS is less effective than DS is because its operation is more diffused. DS has AE, which is a superior forum to here (AN). Also, the final authority for DS is the Arbitration Committee, which as far review mechanisms go, is a more stable proposition than that of the community for GS. Anyway, however we are able to turn the tide, I'm all for that. Please notify me whenever this is attempted so that I could contribute. El_C 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK I will post some recent diffs to a subpage and we can go from there. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee, El C, EdJohnston, and Girth Summit: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds. I looked for diffs in Dec 2020, then after a bit, I stopped looking for more. The list does not include all relevant editors, articles, or diffs, but it's enough to get the idea. All editors named have been notified. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, El C, Ivanvector, Girth Summit, would it be in violation of a topic ban to post further diffs to the subpage Levivich has created? There is much to add. GPinkerton (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, GPinkerton, it would be. But for my part, I could see myself being amenable to briefly suspending the ban for that page so that you'd at least enjoy some limited participation. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Even if it would be appropriate for me to unilaterally authorize this for you, I'm too unsure as to how to proceed at the moment without further input. And by that I also mean beyond the matter of suspending your ban. Because beyond it, I'm not even sure that the current state of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds and its talk page (especially) makes it the best fit. Perhaps going straight to the Committee, whether via ARCA or a full case, is the way to go. It's fine having an informal evidence-gathering page, but once it also turns into a debate arena, that's when I start having doubts. Certainly interested to learn what others think. El_C 05:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkteron I'd probably defer to El_C regarding the terms of your ban, I'm not sure what the exact restriction is. I can't see it at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, maybe I'm being dense - do you know if it has been formally logged? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, that's actually on me, I'm realizing. I mean, the blocking admin is the one who thought up the sanction, but I'm the one who clicked the unblock button once agreement was reached. Grr, that means I have to negotiate that annoying table at WP:RESTRICT — I wish it was more like WP:AEL. El_C 17:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, can I just appeal for it to be lifted as now-redundant, given that my concerns have basically been vindicated? In any case I'm not interested in joining the discussion, I'd just like to merge the diffs in the ANI reports I was blocked for with the diffs collected by others to save everyone going round the carousel yet again. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I suppose you could, but I would strongly advise against doing so at this time. The agreement you signed up for as a condition for lifting the indefinite block was that the sanction would not be revisited for at least 6 months. That said, if and/or when this ends up falling under the Committee's purview, then I certainly would not find fault with you appealing the sanction directly to them. El_C 21:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I do not think I would conclude your "concerns have basically been vindicated". You were removed from the article because you were so contentious there that other editors couldn't tell what the underlying problem was, and pulling your input out allowed other editors to see that the underlying problem was POV-pushing. That is not vindication. —valereee (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, editors couldn't tell what the underlying problem was ... the underlying problem was POV-pushing ... except by reading my ANI reports that said exactly that! I only mean that the substance of the issues I raised has been recognized and at least somewhat acted on. I will add the diffs unless anyone objects. GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'm not seeing an objection, so I'm going to say this has been granted as an exception to your t-ban. But I strongly recommend you lean over backwards to be fair and neutral. Go far beyond what you think is necessary. If there are reasonable complaints, it's likely a similar request for an exemption wouldn't be granted in future. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I'm just going to add what has already been on ANI + a few some similar edits that have occurred or I have found in the interim. GPinkerton (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, It's Pink-er-ton, like John Pinkerton and Allan Pinkerton! GPinkerton (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, typo burn. Please don't sent the Pinkertons after me! El_C 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, yeah that's uncle Allan, fled to the States in disgrace. GPinkerton (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha, no doubt. Way to tarnish your abolitionist creds, drunk uncle! El_C 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it would be, but like EI_C I would be amenable to relaxing the restriction for that single page and its talk. It might be a good test of your ability to contribute in the topic in way that doesn't impact articles or article talks. I'll warn you that there's already contention at the talk over whether the page is presenting only one side, so one of the things you might consider focussing on is edits that lean the other way. Sort of a devil's advocate position for you. :) —valereee (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Welp, that didn't work. —valereee (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've told GP to stop with the additions at that page. Really disappointed. —valereee (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Like I said, I only added what what has already been on ANI. Bear in mind that some of my additions have been subsequently edited, and in a way which I think demonstrates exactly what is going on. GPinkerton (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton Did you or did you not write "is taken aback at GPinkerton's refutation of his claim that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" does not appear in the book (it does and is explained), and suddenly changes his mind on "Martin Dr Martin" the erstwhile worthy academic in respectable Paris, whose PhD-thesis-turned book was published by the University of Utrecht Press, but who in Act 2 now appears a radically changed character, a mean scholar [he's actually a professor] whose book is now merely personal opinion and tainted by association with the Center for Kurdish Studies (sounds very neutral) [emphasis original] which, in the space of less than twenty-four hours, has now become unspeakably biased and unusable for reasons that remain unexplained"? —valereee (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I wrote that weeks ago. Do the diffs provided not support this interpretation? GPinkerton (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, you seem to have added it into the page in question? I literally could not care less whether the diffs support the interpretation. What I care about it whether the language is confrontational. Why would you even consider posting this there after we urged you to be neutral? —valereee (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, how would you have worded it? GPinkerton (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, to make it neutral, as was requested of you? I'd have taken out all the snark and included only that which was necessary to provide context, and the simple fact you asked the question is astonishing. I think you need to stop commenting in this discussion now, it's a violation of your topic ban. —valereee (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, things are getting really interesting here. We have t-banned user GPinkteron who just came back from being indeffed on the condition they stay away from the Middle East post 1492 topics. Well, they never respected that condition and are still trying to game the system by WP:Canvassing in several articles. They canvassed here while negotiating a t-ban and again here as soon as the indef block was lifted. They were warned by Valereee here, still they are coming back to the topic in full force on this board. Also, maybe it's time that someone look into the three arbitrary blocks dropped around by Valereee to shut down any other opinion on the Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan page. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee: I admire you saying that you are one admin throwing too much weight around. This is really the case with the three blocks you gave at that page, and the fact that you and Levivich have admitted not having prior experience in the topic makes things worse, with all due respect. Levivich has been focused on using recent literature (snapshot of 2020) and neglected/ignored the century long of history in that area since the border was created. Now, that article sounds like a PKK/PYD propaganda website. Furthermore, your expectation from GPinkerton to see the other side is way too optimistic given their history of personal attacks and POV-pushing in several articles, not just Syrian Kurdistan. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, you are welcome to ask for an unblock. I have zero objection to other admin unblocking any of you if you'll agree to stop trying to use sources that aren't recent scholarly work. That's my current goal: everyone at that article is sticking to recent independent scholarly works. There's even a handy list of such works pinned to the top of the page, a list collected from suggestions by multiple editors. If you know of other recent scholarly works that belong on that list, you can argue for their inclusion. What you can't do, and what SD did yesterday, was bring in a 1946 CIA report and argue that it is a reliable source for anything other than what the report itself says. As I explained to SD at their talk, other editors having to explain this ad nauseam wastes those editors' time, and that is disruptive. —valereee (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly object to valereees comment about "There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments" I'm discussing in a calm way at the talkpage, everything I have said is backed up by reliable sources and I am not going to edit war with anyone at that article. The article/talkpage is calm now. I also strongly object to the incorrect blocks of عمرو_بن_كلثوم and Fiveby which were both unfounded.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. An unfounded claim about an action you claim is unfounded (word salad!) seems like a bit of a non-starter. Just seems a bit silly for you to even bother expressing such a stark disagreement with valereee's blocks when you provide zero substance. Maybe it's a sign of the times that I need to spell this out, but: zero substance → zero traction. El_C 01:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please keep discussions on content to the article's talk page.

Supreme Deliciousness, you literally have just argued for the nth time that the current lead sentence, which contains disputed material that editors have would have every right remove except the article is fully protected, is "more neutral" than the proposed one. For comparison, the current lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria. The proposed lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast. Syrian Kurdistan is sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan", alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê‎‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises'), Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Northern Kurdistan'), and Iraqi Kurdistan (Kurdish: Başûrê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Southern Kurdistan'). You have literally been arguing for weeks now that Syrian Kurdistan "isn't a place", that "all sides and all views" must be present in the lead sentence. You haven't budged from that, even when policy and scholarship have been presented to you, and I believe that while you're working in good faith, you believe what you believe and can't accept what the scholars say, and the result is well-intentioned POV-pushing. It is not an unfair description of what you've been doing at that article. —valereee (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Why are only scholarship mentioning "Syrian Kurdistan" relevant to you? Why are scholars using other terms for the area not relevant to you? The talkpage is to discuss disputes, and as long as the discussion is civil, then there isn't any problem. I already said that I'm not going to engage in any edit war over the issue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness, no, there's also WP:CIVILPOV, which is still disruptive. To be clear, it's nothing to do with what's relevant to me. I am not arguing with you about sourcing or content. I am telling you what I am seeing: one editor, when presented with a preponderance of sources using the same term for an area, listing other phrases used to refer to it in various contexts and using that to insist that until all authors refer to it in all contexts in a single way, Wikipedia must continue to present it as "some people say" instead of "is". What I'm telling you is from the point of view of someone who really doesn't care what the lead says, this isn't a reasonable standard. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC) If you google "Syrian Kurdistan" then obviously that's what your going to find, so you need to google something else to find other names for the area. Who recognizes a "Syrian Kurdistan" ? Which country? Which international organ? We have scholary sources that say that the term "Syrian Kurdistan" is "mythology" and "imagined community" and was rarely used before 2012, so why should "Syrian Kurdistan" be presented as an undisputed official name for the area? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ARC or ARCA?

It seems to me the only question remaining is whether (1) this dispute is submitted to Arbcom in the form of a full case request at WP:ARC, which means Arbcom would be the one taking any enforcement action, or (2) this dispute is submitted to Arbcom at WP:ARCA seeking authorization of DS in the topic area (whatever the scope may be), which means admins would be the one taking any enforcement action. I'm leaning #1 because I don't see a bunch of admin saying "We'd totally take enforcement action if only we were authorized" which is when #2 would make sense. Initially I wasn't crazy about a full arbcom case, but I've come to believe it's the only choice. What do others think, esp. admin? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it should be clear to everyone what and who the problem is (/are), I think the immediate issue could be overcome with a few judicious bans for incorrigible POV-pushing. Whether this needs an ARC or ARCA to deal with the issue in future is not something I have an opinion on, but would support either and prefer and ARC. GPinkerton (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

this edit should tell anyone all they need to know about this issue. GPinkerton (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Is ARCA valid? I thought ARCA was to amend or clarify cases ArbCom has ruled on, but I don't think it's ruled on this case or area, so there's nothing to amend? They surely could decide to close a case by motion and enact DS, but I personally think doing so is generally a bit lazy and they should consider a dispute in full to ensure DS is actually the right tool for the job.

Recognising the concern about GS's effectiveness I raised above & the issues El C detailed, if admins already know what they want to do in this area, but they don't feel the tools are there for them, then maybe it's indeed worth a shot at creating a sub-section proposing to extend the SCW sanctions to Kurdistan (OR just changing it to "all pages related to Syria or ISIL, broadly construed" -- there is precedent for broad authorisations like this, see WP:ARBIPA, and this broad route is perhaps clearer and more future-proof). At least in theory, I think GS is equivalent to DS in terms of admin power (minus deletion), and easier to enact. It could SNOW close in favour so not much time wasted if it doesn't help, but if so that might suggest this is nuanced enough for a full case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I keep going around that circle myself, unsure which way to go: expand GS, request DS, request a full case, just post a bunch of TBAN proposals at ANI? Right now I'm thinking that it's not really fair or feasible to ask admin or non-admin editors to take the time required to go through all the diffs to figure out if a TBAN or other sanction is justified. That thankless task is probably best laid on arbitrators' shoulders, because they were foolish enough to get themselves elected for such tasks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree on that score, but perhaps it also couldn't hurt to try the admin route one last time. GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe ping in the admins who are working in this area (El C, valereee et al) and see if they’d be willing and confident in taking GS actions if the option was clearly available to them? If maybe, not much is lost by passing an amendment and seems worth a try? If not, then the arb direction seems the only option, but also is ArbCom even able to deal with diverse WP:CIVILPOV pushing (which, from the above, I gather is the main concern here)? I dunno, but the essay would lead one to think they aren’t. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For those who wish for direct Committee adjudication and enforcement on participants of the latest dispute, the workload of a full case is one path. Those who are more concerned with the topic area, overall, are free to request for DS to be authorized by motion (which need not be deemed inherently "lazy," I challenge). Myself, I have no real preference, as I don't really intend on contributing too intensively or extensively to either one. Also, can someone please fill me in about why GPinkerton is suddenly discussing the dispute directly, here, as well as contributing to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds? I realize we had discussed maybe allowing them to do so at some point, but I was unaware that a decision has already been made. Wow, GPinkerton, you are keeping me busy tonight... El_C 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, [15] and [16] GPinkerton (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s why I say generally. The Horn of Africa seemed a good case for a motion route, but here there seems to be a lot going on, and not mainly socking. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, thanks — gotcha. ProcrastinatingReader, sure, that isn't an unreasonable assumption to make. But I do note that last time I encountered disruption in the topic area, it did not involve any of the latest participants or what they currently dispute — it was more on the linguistic front of how Yazidis view Kurmanji (as Ezdîkî, and so on). Anyway, socking in that dispute was totally out of control, prompting me to protect tens of articles. El_C 05:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@El C: How would you describe the scope of the relevant (disrupted) topic area? It's not just Syria and it's not just Kurds... I keep coming back to "the Middle East", which seems overly broad, but maybe not. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, my preference is for it to encompass anything having to do with the Kurds, anywhere. Kurds in Germany? Yes. El_C 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it should be framed in whatever way the Palestine issue is dealt with, only with more countries, more disputed homelands, and more millions of people involved! Unsurprisingly, it also touches on the most recent war in the Caucasus. GPinkerton (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. I think the SCW GS already covers anything which, like that, is a direct product of the civil war (although that specifically is more broadly covered by WP:ARBAA2). Anyway, some ARBPIA and IRANPOL overlap is also to be expected. But, regardless, I think the Kurds are the true heart of it, again, without there needing to be one specific geographical locale. El_C 06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, what in the world are you doing? This entire ARC/ARCA discussion is a vio of your topic ban. You asked for and received (temporarily) permission to add to the diffs page. You did not ask for permission to contribute to this discussion. I understand the confusion, but stop now. —valereee (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@El C that would be my fault. You'd said you were amenable, GS said they'd defer to you, I said I'd be amenable also, and when there were no objections I told them they could add diffs to that page and warned them to "lean over backwards" to do it neutrally, a warning they didn't heed even a tiny bit, so I told them to stop. I don't think we should repeat the experiment. I think they may have been confused about whether it also meant they were welcome to participate in this discussion. —valereee (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Would also support a case concerning Kurds in a broader way anywhere.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile we are discussing how to present the Kurdish issue to the ArbCom, there also exists WP:NATIONALISTS (an essay) which covers quite a wide spectrum of the dispute we had last month at Syrian Kurdistan. To upgrade this essay into a guideline might also help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I get the sense that, unlike my own aim at closing gaps in existing sanction regimes, others here may be after what effectively is asking the Committee to upgrade a GS (SCW) into a DS, mainly for more effective enforcement. Which, if that's the case, it should be clearly noted. My view is that there are gaps in WP:ARBPIA, as can be seen with pages such as Kurds in Israel (there are almost a quarter of a million of these) or the Kurdish American Caucus; gaps in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics, as can be seen in such pages as Kurds in Iran and Iranian Kurdistan for anything pre-1978; and finally, gaps in WP:SCW, involving any disputes which may have risen to the fore because of and are now somewhat intertwined with the Syrian Civil War, so as to make invoking its GS more challenging — can't really recall the specifics of this example, but I vaguely remember there being a conflict recently over historical demography data (or internal migration policies, or both, I forget) well preceding the civil war. Anyway, coming across as pretty much only seeking to upgrade one sanction regime with another, could be the downside of a Motion. But, if participants go the route of a full case, then they can say: 'the SCW GS has proven insufficient to resolve this particular dispute. We require Committee counsel and/or intervention.' Which, on its face, is a perfectly legitimate request to submit. El_C 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then we probably better go for a case. New year is here and now I would have the time. Levivich also mentioned that a case would probably the only solution. I'll open a new discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds to gather issues to be discussed, the diffs can still be added at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds until we agree on how to present a case.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It might be helpful if an admin or three would look at the AN/Kurd subpage and say whether or not the various complained-of-edits are or are not disruptive and should or should not continue. Editors need to either stop doing the problematic edits (if consensus is they're disruptive) or stop complaining about them (if consensus is that they're improvements or at least not disruptive), because both the edits and the complaints appear to be continuing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I would echo this. As someone who is being accused of being too close to this, I'd sincerely appreciate some more eyes. —valereee (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not too close, Valereee, if that is the accusation then it is faulty. But I'm not sure that it is. What Joe Roe is saying —and I agree with him— is that a solitary admin should not be instituting a sourcing requirement as part of a sanctions regime, especially considering that the only one (I think) presently existing on the project is WP:APL, put in place by the Committee itself, and WP:MEDRS, which exists as a guideline and has seen ample use in the last year in conjunction with WP:GS/COVID19, for example. Anyway, I hope you could see the problem: admin says 1946 CIA source is no good — content decision? Admin says no pre-2000 sources, thereby excluding 1946 CIA source — legit GS decision? Speaking for myself, I would not have done that, and I'm saying that as someone who wishes to strengthen your hand, hoping that you will continue administering the topic area. You're allowed a misstep. Myself, I've never instituted a sourcing requirement as part of a sanctions regime — in my mind that is a community (like with MEDRS) or Committee (like with APL) matter. Somewhat coincidentally, I've been engaged in some APL admin work lately, and found myself a bit surprised that its sourcing requirement has not really been invoked or even mentioned by anyone (except for when I, myself, brought it up somewhat in passing). Totally anecdotal, still a bit curious, seeing as pretty much all they do is argue over sources. As for having another admin stepping in to assist with the Kurds evidence subpage, that notion might be moot, seeing as GPinkerton says that he will be filing an arbitration request imminently. El_C 07:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C, oh, I have zero problem with us deciding this wasn't an okay solution or not an okay way to implement a solution! I was just throwing shit against the wall to see what might stick. If I keep working there, which I thank you for your vote of confidence, I'll just have to see what else I can come up with. Maybe opening an RfC on the question, now that I've got enough people's attention. :D

I still think saying a 1946 CIA report is not reliable for anything but what the report itself says is a policy statement, not a content statement, and I'll argue that one anywhere and with anyone. But I'm completely fine with a single admin instituting a restriction like this one not being the correct way to solve this problem, and I actually don't even consider it a misstep to have tried it. Doesn't work for the community? That's cool, no harm no foul, let's find something that will work for the community. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I did actually ask at WT:GS about this. I really don't consider it a misstep, even if it's eventually overturned. It was an attempt to creatively solve a problem, and I'm never going to avoid trying creative solutions, even if they ultimately fail. Willingness to risk failure is necessary for innovation to happen. We need to be willing to risk it, and as a community we need to encourage such risk-taking. —valereee (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, you said: "is not reliable for anything but what the report itself says", but at the SK talkpage you do not allow the French census source when that source was used to say what it itself says: [17], it was presented as being the French census in the article. But with your source restriction, it was vetoed out of the article by Levivich using your new rule. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, Valereee, but I do still think that being adventurist like that was a misstep. Because it does seem kinda out there for one to take it upon themselves to impose the sort of restriction which otherwise requires community and/or Committee consensus. A restriction which, again, seems to have only been implemented twice on the project: first, with MEDRS, and secondly with APL (and that's it). As for the status of that 1946 report itself, I've had instances that as an uninvolved admin, I would say that though I find this or that source generally unreliable for this or that purpose (which, within reason, I think is prerfectly fine for an uninvolved admin to opine over), I'd still allow participants to take it to RSN or launch an RfC for further confirmation (as opposed to having my own assessment serve as a final decision on the matter). Since, ultimately, it is a content decision. Though I suppose if usage of such sources is seen to be grossly out of step with RS conventions, then IAR-ing it may be okay (which may well be the case here, I don't really know). Still, the danger with this approach is that it could easily become a slippery slope. El_C 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. :) I have no problem with us disagreeing on the value of trying creative solutions or whether this was a misstep. I said in the section at WT:GS that I was going to try it out, meaning "and see if anyone objects". When SD expressed concern at my talk, I encouraged them to open a section here, as I considered it a completely reasonable concern. I just think worrying about whether something completely reversible represents a misstep is not worth it. I'm more likely to be cautious about things that are irreversible or leave marks. I think we're having a really productive conversation about this idea, and that's at least partially because I was bold. But I completely respect your differing opinion, it's completely reasonable. Er, not the slippery slope part. :) —valereee (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was (hopefuly) referring to Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage! Also, I don't think seeking community input on the GS talk page was necessarily the best fit — as far as talk pages go, it is rather inactive. A query here, at AN, would have been better, I think. Though I suppose it doesn't really matter now. Still, for future reference... Anyway, onward and upward! El_C 19:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unban

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

---

They banned me more than 3 months ago because I posted some info from The Lancet about studies related to Gam-COVID-Vac. I started that article on 12 August 2020. But I noticed that similar information was added to the article about Moderna's vaccine here, and the editors who made those contributions were not topic banned and the added text was not removed. Here is the text fragment that I was banned for by Salvio giuliano:

On 4 September 2020, in The Lancet, findings from two phase 1/2 of the vaccine were presented. The researchers enrolled 76 healthy adult volunteers (aged 18–60 years) into the two studies (38 people in each study). The primary outcome measures of the studies were safety and immunogenicity.

And this is the text about Moderna's vaccine:

On November 16, 2020, Moderna announced preliminary data from its Phase III clinical trial, indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection

And as no one was blocked for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine (even without any WP:MEDRS as it was substantiated by RexxS regarding my topic ban), then my topic ban should be reviewed because it seems to be erroneous. Moreover, my edits, for which I was blocked, did not violate WP:MEDRS. I am ready to conduct constructive work on the expansion and development of the article I started. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the obvious difference is that one vaccine's results were given from phase III trials, which is designed to determine clinical effectiveness, and you gave the other from phase 1/2 (I'm not sure what you mean by that), which are not, and only involved a few dozen people rather than the tens of thousands involved in a phase III trial. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: "Moderna announced [...] indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection"... Why in my case when I cited The Lancet it is not good and "Moderna announced" is good? What specific WP rule do you have in mind?

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

How about talking about trial phases in any further response that make? That was obviously the point of my comment, but you have completely ignored it in your goalpost-moving reply. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that this message itself is a topic ban violation, and the user must be blocked. Note also that he was recently unblocked by the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom and managed to survive4 only a few days before being indefinitely blocked (effectively site-banned) for wikilawyering and per NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What happens or does not happen in Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem relevant for discussing Александр Мотин's en-wiki sanctions. BANEX gives much leeway for appealing the ban. That said, their argument for unblocking is weak. It's basically a NOTTHEM argument that does not address how they would avoid making edits that are considered disruptive. If Александр Мотин fails to explain how they would avoid getting into trouble again, I would oppose lifting the ban. Politrukki (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

He may indeed appeal the ban at AN, but what he is doing is not really appealing the ban. He does not accept that the edits were disruptive in the first place (which he will continue doing until he is blocked with TPA removed, as he has already proven on many previous occasions), and, in addition, he is discussing the content of the topic he is still banned from.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The full story is that my indef site-wide block by some RuWP admin was cancelled by the Russian ArbCom and his adminship was revoked. Then, another RuWP admin, that seemed to be angry because of this, indef blocked me again for a far-fetched reason contrary to the Russian ArbCom's decision. The issue is being resolved. And I totally agree with Politrukki that your reply is irrelevant. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The adminship was revoked because he asked for it, and it was not revoked by the ArbCom but as a voluntary request. The issue has been resolved indeed - you are indefinitely blocked from editing the Russian Wikipedia. This is why you are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not true: "Paragraph 3.1 The Arbitration Committee revokes user's adminship / Арбитражный комитет снимает с участника флаг администратора (с одновременным присвоением флага подводящего итоги)". I don't see any admin's "voluntary request" in this decision. And I draw your attention to the fact that you are not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia once you call to block me upon ban appealing. The similar story is on the Russian WP regarding another indef block. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have striken out this part of my comment. Concerning your opinion that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies - well, when I ask for my unban you will be welcome to make this point (assuming you are not site-banned by then). Now we are discussing your unban, and I just do not see it happening. In fact it would save a lot of time for everybody if you get an indefinite block (which I also said last time and you have just proven me right), but if people are willing to give you more and more rope, fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that RuWP admin said almost the same and his adminship was later revoked. I mean, you're not the first admin who is trying to demonize me in this way. At the same time, I do not understand at all what I have done to you, that you are constantly hounding me and turning other editors and admins against. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the light of Ymblanter's comment and Alexander Motin's edits above I would support an indefinite block. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unban - user clearly still has problems with MEDRS and this topic specifically. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Why was nobody banned for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine if you think that I "have problems with MEDRS"? My position is fully justified. What am I wrong about? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You still don't seem to see the difference between a phase 1/2 trial, with a few dozen participants and not designed to show whether a vaccine actually works, and a phase 3 trial with tens of thousands participants which is designed to show that. Why do you carry on ignorantly making comments as if I hadn't pointed that out above? You can't avoid bans/blocks by simply ignoring statements based on scientific evidence that go against your preconceived ideas. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Phil Bridger: On your part, this is an attempt to steer the discussion into the scientific field. And, in this appeal, I write about bias and double standards in relation to my constructive contributions. I gave the examples above and this is enough to understand the situation. --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
        • My comment is totally valid. You said that you should be unblocked because edits by another editor to another article were allowed, but I pointed out that those edits are not comparable. There is a single standard here, which is to base edits on science, not politics. And please realise that you were not just blocked for one edit: that edit was simply the last straw. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Of course, I was banned for that edit. Moreover, the ANI request by RexxS was a clear demonstration of WP:ADMINSHOP. This can be seen here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            No, you were banned for long-term pro-Russian POV pushing (going well into propaganda territory) in articles related to politics and, well, complete inability to understand what was wrong with your edits. Obviously, you still have not understood it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            Well, why was nobody blocked for this so called "long-term propaganda" and "pro-(pick any country here) POV pushing" if you think my edit is pro-Russian POV pushing:

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

I'd be very interested to know.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Both of your points are, quite obviously to anyone who looks at the situation, bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Decline appeal. This is not a topic ban violation because it is an attempt at an appeal of the topic ban (WP:BANEX). However, I would decline it because it does not convince me that the decision to ban Александр Мотин was wrong. Sandstein 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that this is not a violation of the topic ban; appealing a topic ban explicitly doesn't count. I have no opinion on whether to grant the appeal. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking as an admin, not an arb (only 7 more days , thank goodness), I would grant the appeal . The violation is borderline at most. The ruWP is thankfully not our concern. We can always reblock. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Handing out a topic ban for one edit would be excessive, but that's not what happened here. The topic ban was imposed for a pattern of behaviour. I suggest we decline this, a topic ban appeal does need to address the actual reasons for the topic ban and not focus on asking for other people to be punished. Hut 8.5 18:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Appealing a topic ban does not violate that ban, but commenting on other editors' contributions in the area subject to restrictions does. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. (However, on the procedural point, I think that Александр Мотин's posts in this thread, at least thus far, are covered by WP:BANEX.) I have read through the discussion in the original September WP:AN thread that lead to the Covid+Russian politics topic ban imposition, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324#Александр Мотин and I find that the topic ban was fully justified. Александр Мотин's posts in this thread thus far clearly demonstrate why the topic ban is still needed. Nor was that September episode an isolated incident.There were earlier problems related to COVID-19, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Александр Мотин reported by Zefr. Also, Александр Мотин had earlier, this June, been indefinitely topic banned from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for disruptive editing and POV pushing there. I am neutral on the suggestion for a NOTHERE indef block. On one hand, there has been significant recent history of disruptive editing in several areas. On the other hand, the user is still contibuting, seemingly productively, on some other topics, particularly railway and subway stations. If there are problems present with Александр Мотин's editing even on those subjects, then, yes, a NOTHERE indef block would be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. I can be very supportive of unban appeals when the banned user demonstrates an understanding of the reason for the ban and shows there is no need for it any more. A couple of cases we've had have led to editors rejoining this subject area and subsequently making some very positive contributions. But in this case I'm seeing nothing like that. All I see is repetitive insistence by Александр Мотин that they have done nothing wrong, and that others should have been banned for superficially similar but actually significantly different edits. On the specific Lancet source itself, the problem with that was very clearly explained in the original ban discussion. It has also been explained several times here in this very discussion by Phil Bridger. But all I'm seeing is a refusal to listen and no attempt whatsoever to consider those explanations, and just stonewalling insistence that the ban was wrong. And that's just the triggering event for the ban, which really should be very easy to address. There has been no attempt to address the wider NPOV issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

& Since this a topic ban appeal, it would be good if someone closes it rather than lets a bot archive it without a formal close.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Ongoing Caliph issues at two talk pages

Would it be possible to get big edit notices (or semi-protection again, if that's a preferred option) at Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate due to non-stop WP:CALIPH issues please? The recent history of both is full of non-stop complaints and/or BLP violations. FDW777 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid if the users are incapable of reading the sentence directly below which they are posting (in the same topic), they will not read notices. A semi-protection for a few days looks to me the only reasonable option.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added an editnotice to Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and replaced the one at Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate with stronger wording. I suggest if you see any more posts of this type, you should simply revert them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the same kinda thing that happened at Sushant Singh Rajput earlier this year. The editnotice does not help as they cannot be seen on mobile. The community wishlist item to implement this did not get enough support, unfortunately, and the phab task is otherwise stuck. Looking at history, many of these driveby requests were submitted on mobile. My experience at SSR’s talk was that these people often don’t come back to read the response. Just revert imo, and stop the archives being clogged up with nonsense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help/advice. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

We could always repurpose Special:AbuseFilter/1106 for this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it's blowing up [18]. Be interesting to see the WMF response. Nthep (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a thread on ANI, FYI. Pahunkat (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Is discussion of T. D. Adler editorials permitted on article talk pages?

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

---

I started a discussion at User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Repeatedly_reverting_me_on_talk_pages. The editor thinks that my talk page comments referring to T. D. Adler should be reverted or archived because T. D. Adler was banned from Wikipedia and Breitbart (his primary publishing outlet) is deprecated. I disagree, and have had no contact or coordination with T. D. Adler on or off-wiki. A somewhat similar conversation that I started with another editor is ongoing and appears to be at least somewhat conciliatory. This particular user though is digging in his heals.

I am looking for informed persons here to weigh in about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, Adler was banned from WP for off-wiki harassment of other editors. They have continued this with around 60 “editorials” enabled by Breitbart. (Can't link to the list as the site is blacklisted.) I don’t know your purpose – but, knowingly or not, linking to posts like this on multiple article TPs [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] contributes to harassment and is not helpful to the project as Adler’s posts look like a year-long rant. Perhaps you should just explain your purpose. O3000 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A large number of Epiphyllumlover's recent edits have involved inserting and reinserting links on article talk pages to material written in various places by The Devil's Advocate, who has been permanently banned from the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a number of reasons. Kamala Harris, Mark Levin, CNN controversies, Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, Lauren Southern, Sarah Jeong, Ilhan Omar, and The Epoch Times. This material, posted on right-wing extremist sites such as Breitbart or even what amounts to a personal blog, includes personal attacks, false claims, and bad-faith accusations against a number of named Wikipedians. The links to Breitbart are even blacklisted, so they've had to intentionally evade the blacklist to post them.

Myself and several other editors, including Philip Cross, Binksternet, and JayBeeEll, have objected and reverted the links, and attempted to explain to them why they are objectionable. Epiphyllumlover frames their posts as just asking questions, but I view the wholesale and widespread posting of links to material carrying out the obvious retaliatory vendetta of a banned user to be dangerously close to proxying for said banned editor. There is no reason for this material to be linked on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I do not think I have anything to add to your comments or to O3000's, both of which seem to accurately describe the situation. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I admit I haven't read most of them but I'm surprised to see TDA's articles at Breitbart referred to as "harassment". Maybe this is my American bias speaking but I feel like freedom of the press and freedom of speech are important even if we disagree with what people say. What's the difference between TDA's articles at Breitbart and someone else's blog post at Wikipediocracy, or any of the many other websites where people write about Wikipedia (some of whom are also banned editors)? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, in this instance the difference is that someone tried to spam them across a large number of articles without articulating a plausible story about how that might be related to improving the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I brought up off-wiki harassment as I think that’s a part of his block. I suppose continuing it at Breitbart with 60 “editorials”, after an indef, is not harassment. But, sprinkling links to them in ATPs seems questionable, particularly when some out editor names. O3000 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  You should probably read them, then, because they basically consist of a slew of false accusations, personal attacks, and axe-grinding against long-term editors. For example, there is a claim in one article that Snooganssnoogans "smeared" The Gateway Pundit by (accurately, and with a slew of sources) describing the site as "known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes." That this statement is impeccably sourced and factually true is irrelevant to TDA - they describe it as "smears of conservatives" because... well, because their feelings are hurt by the facts, I suppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not perceiving a difference between someone writing that someone "smeared" an organization, and you writing just now about someone that "their feelings are hurt by the facts". In both instances, someone is saying something unkind about someone on the internet. Spamming links (to anything) is a different story; talk pages should be used for talking about improving articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  If there was any conversation at all about improving articles, this thread probably wouldn't have been started. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be a ban on discussing them, if it's relevant to improving an article. However, simply spamming "what do you think about this" for many of his editorials is inappropriate, especially when the articles are a banned editor posting on a blacklisted site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a situation where no amount of disingenuous posturing is going to cover the fact that these are links to content from banned users with a history of attacking and harassing Wikipedians. There is no justification for posting links to such material here. If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content, you can be blocked as clearly not here to improve this encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. Apparently, there is consensus that Breitbart must be deprecated, and the site have been blacklisted. This means that any information published there is not considered by the community to be useful for improving Wikipedia, with a possible exception of information of Breitbart itself. If someone wants to change this consensus, they must open an RfC and explain why Breitbart should be removed from the blacklit, or why certain aspects of its publications can improve Wiokipedia. Technically speaking (though IMO exremely unlikely) an outcome of this discussion could even be that Adler's editorials are reliable sources and thus can be cited.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically they can still be used under opinion type stuff. Per the RFC and RSP This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. No idea what that situation would be but there ya go. PackMecEng (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Epiphyllumlover: Checking those links would be boring so let me say that from now, anyone who amplifies the thoughts of a banned user will be blocked. Sure, if there were a chance that material might be useful for improving an article, it might mentioned. However, breitbart.com is not a reliable source so mentioning that site would be misguided. In particular, mentioning it in multiple places would indicate a disinterest in improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has fans and haters—neither have a right to be amplified on talk pages. Free speech is great but this is not the website for that. An amusing feature of this issue is that whereas Wikipediocracy would normally be the right place to discuss such opinions, they might not allow amplification of TDA's thoughts either. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Echoing some of the above: linking a TDA "editorial" or Breitbart article on a talkpage as a possible source might be an innocent suggestion from someone unaware of the spam blacklist. Linking TDA editorials and Breitbart articles on multiple pages, including spacing in the url to get around the blacklist restriction, is bordering on disingenuous. Please stop doing this. These editorials are not reliable sources and your continued posting of them is a misuse of article talkpages. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• We have consensus that posting references to Adler's content en masse is disruption, from how I read the above. But discussion of the articles is not prohibited, so far as I am aware. My user page contains (right at the bottom) quotes and my summaries of two of Adler's articles, as I'm rather proud of my mentions in them (I'm portrayed negatively, of course). So far I've seen nobody object but I would remove it if I saw it causing significant controversy. It seems to me that referencing the articles is only disruptive if such actions would be disruptive whether or not it was specifically Adler and Breitbart (i.e. spam posting of links to a particular website is not helpful on talk pages unless it relates to something immediately and uncontroversially actionable). — Bilorv (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't suggest that WP:DENY would be effective with someone as dedicated as TDA but the more we say about him and his predictable opinions, the more trouble we bring for the encyclopedia. If you really want to publicize his achievements on your user page, I guess that's ok, but using an article talk page to chat about a blacklisted, guaranteed unreliable opinion would not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Bilorv's summary. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. I suspect Adler is a crypto-Wikipedian, given his manner of writing and strong attachment to the subject. He may reconcile with you someday, but it won't be tomorrow.

I intend to post Adler links to talk pages only if there is a particular & relevant topic to discuss that is described in the links. Because he is banned I will not post the general "I don't endorse this, but you might find it helpful" type message.

From your discussion I can see that there is no consensus that posting an Adler link constitutes "proxying for said banned editor". Rather the policies it runs up against are the ones on spamming & constructiveness. That Adler is banned is not really the problem; rather it was that my edits could be interpreted as spamming or as being of limited constructiveness.

My response to the "large number of articles" type comments is that they are exaggerations. Moreover, I don't have any other such article up my sleeve to add in even if you gave me a green light.

My response about the "If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content" is that it ignores the good-faith which I have repeatedly demonstrated. As for the blacklisting aspect and using a space to break the link; as I understand it the software cannot differentiate between links to articles and links to talk pages. So there is nothing disingenuous about getting around a software defect.

My response to the "not here" comment is that even if 70% of an editorial is trash, it is possible that something else might be helpful. (Not in the article--but for editors trying to understand where the article came from and where it is going.) Specifically that he summarizes the edit history of highly contested articles is helpful. As an analogy, some Catholic libraries keep a copy of the Examination of the Council of Trent even though it is Lutheran and highly critical of the Council of Trent. The reason for this is that they find some value in the dialectic nature of the dispute. Also, the volumes contain many quotes and summarize a great deal of sources on interesting topics. So it is helpful for understanding what went on at Trent, even though it is a critical source that was on the Index of Forbidden Books sort of like Breitbart is today.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The only reason to post something on an article talk page is to make an actionable proposal to improve the article based on policy. Adding links that are indistinguishable from trolling and/or proxying for a banned user and/or lack of competence will lead to a block. You might feel that a block issued by me would be overturned on appeal—that is your call. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think Bilorv did a good job covering the situation. Also WP:DENY is not really a thing in this situation or in general really given it is only a user essay. PackMecEng (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The only reason to post"--you mean, aside from the media mention template. (But Breitbart is not supposed to be posted to the media mention template because it is depreciated.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, you write: "It is hard to avoid them because Google News indexes them." Editors are expected to use crap filters. Google finds everything, and you should know better than to use (or even read) the junk it finds. A failure to have a well-developed crap filter is problematic. You are not some random person who doesn't understand our RS policy, or knows that Breitbart is a deprecated source. Even without a crap filter, you know that much, and yet you persist in proxying for a banned user. You know the author is banned, that type of content is forbidden, and that the source is unreliable and deprecated/blacklisted. You have no excuse for linking to it or even mentioning it here. All those diffs of your edits should be revdeleted as some of those links endanger the lives of editors here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not against consensus or policy from what I can tell. The only issue might be the on masse part. PackMecEng (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, only by jettisoning my crap filter was I able to find more media mention template candidates, because the top rate newsmedia sources don't cite or discuss Wikipedia as much. (But yes, there are downsides to this.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would you jettison your crap filter? You do realize that most of what resides on the Internet is utter nonsense as anyone can post anything therein. In my field, 99+% of what is posted is idiocy. This is an encyclopedia, not aa aggregator looking for hits to sell baldness products and viagra. But, I really am a French model. O3000 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Jettisoning my crap filter". Luv it! Take a "walk on the wild side" at your own peril. What you do off-wiki is your own business, just don't bring it here. We don't want the results of unprotected browsing infecting us here. I do that too, but strictly for research purposes, and never for use as content here. That's how I can recognize where some people get their ideas and know when they are referring to misinformation found on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TDA may engage in what a reasonable person could construe as defamation or false light which could be actionable, and I strongly discourage anyone from posting any of it anywhere on Wikipedia. (hi TDA!) soibangla (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreeing with those above that these editorials should not be linked. The Devil's Advocate/"T.D. Adler" has been using Breitbart to continue his grudges against various Wikipedia editors (full disclosure, I am one of them), and we should not be encouraging his attempts to continue to harass editors (or direct harassment towards them via Breitbart's readers) even after being banned for such behavior. For those arguing that TDA's writings are somehow critically useful, the few I've read have been riddled with falsehoods, either intentional or due to sloppy research, and intentional bending of facts to try to fit his narrative. There is no editorial value to these Breitbart op-eds at all; they are a pretty transparent attempt at drawing clicks to Breitbart via the tired "the internet is being destroyed by leftists!" trope, although I have to wonder at how successful they are given that they often go far deeper into Wikipedia esoterica than I would think would interest your average reader of Breitbart (or any other publication other than perhaps the Signpost). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I blocked a range instead of a single IP address

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

---

A while ago, I wanted to extend the block for 85.76.76.45 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot), but when I was done, I realized that a whole /16 range was blocked; presumably because that was the range chosen for the last block from earlier this month (a page specific block). That makes sense, too, since the same person also edited from 85.76.64.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). However, the edits from that address were not always just trolling; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=997019537 was actually helpful. The same goes for other addresses in that range. So maybe the best way to proceed would be to keep the page specific block for the range for the original duration of 2 years, but apply the site wide block only for a much shorter period.

I had originally posted this at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Exemption for not logged in users in search for the best way to resolve this, but I now realized that that was too narrow, and I need to be off Wiki for half a day, so I'm moving it here for greater visibility. Please don't hesitate to undo my actions in this case. Sorry about any inconvenience this may cause. ◅ Sebastian 23:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple things going on here. Your reference desk editor is within 85.76.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), except for a handful of older edits in 85.76.48.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The editor who is the target of ToBeFree's earlier page block is a different editor, and that one edit is their only edit on that whole /16 range, for the range of time that I can look at. I don't think there's any reason for the entire /16 to be blocked for two years, it's quite a busy range. Why did you want to block the refdesk editor anyway? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking this. I blocked them because I saw only trolling in their contributions. Since I realized, as I wrote above, that the same person did some helpful edits, the easiest solution is to unblock the whole range, which I just did. You already pinged ToBeFree, but I will leave a message on his talk page, too. ◅ Sebastian 10:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The page-specific 2-year rangeblock on the /16 was an alternative to semiprotection of a user talk page, in response to severe, repeated harassment. I'll have a look again later, but that's "any reason" regarding my original partial block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a look again. You may filter the /16 contributions for the User talk namespace to see the extent of these ugly attacks. Per the last sentence of Special:Diff/997185742, I have reinstated the partial, not-account-creation-blocking, anon-only partial block. Thanks for the ping and the message ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" again

Hi all,

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" - what's happening with them? from July 2020 - they are happening again.

Examples:

• Draft:Sample page/17763282
• Draft:Sample page/22718491
• Draft:Sample page/99246948

Sensu stricto they don't meet the WP:G2 criterion for speedy deletion - "This criterion applies neither to sandboxes nor to pages in the user namespace" - as they are intended to be sandboxes.

OK if I leave this to wiser heads that mine? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Shirt58, thanks for circling back on this. If I recall, the place we arrived at in July discussion and preceding VPT thread was that it'd be nice to have a bot automatically clean these up on after some period of time (perhaps a month) so that admins wouldn't have to do it manually when the normal six months expires. A request was created at WP:BOTREQ, but it didn't get taken up before it got archived. If there are enough of these pages that they continue to be a nuisance, perhaps revive the bot request? Feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do further to help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I believe the issue is not with their existence, but with the fact that they are still being created. xaosflux, what happened to your "BRD" plan at Help:Introduction to Wikipedia? Primefac (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just never personally did it, still don't really think these are a good idea though. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The wording of {{db-g2}}, that you quote above, does not seem to match with the policy (WP:G2) which says: This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. It does not apply to pages in the user namespace. It does not apply to valid but unused or duplicate templates. Ivanvector since you suggested G2 applies at the BOTREQ, thoughts? I also would've thought these fit the WP:G2 wording.

I don't know about good idea or not, but I don't particularly see why these are so problematic. After all, users could create pages like this in their userspace, and that would be all okay? Should a bot really be deleting these? What if someone turned one of these into a valid draft article, then the normal G13 process should apply -- a bot couldn't tell the difference. I'm also not sure if an admin having to check Special:PrefixIndex every month or so and delete a dozen pages is that big of a deal tbh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The button at H:ITW doesn't imply in any way "use this to create an article!" but rather implies that you're editing something akin to WP:Sandbox. Hell, if anything that's where the button should go. If someone wants to create a draft, they should be using WP:WIZARD. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see how someone (especially a newbie) may click the button initially to fiddle around with the functions of the editor, and then develop on the same page to make something more concrete. I can sympathise someone who found a way of creating a page may stick with that vs dig out WP:WIZARD. But maybe we can add to the preload something like "Click here when you're ready to create an article." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What this highlights for me is just how much pent up demand there is from low-competence editors to create pages. We have intentionally decided in the past not to link Help:Your first page from the left sidebar, the main page, etc., because we want people to first learn at least the very basics of editing so that they're slightly less likely to create a junk page that's rejected. The consequence of that, though, is that the inevitable group of IPs with the "just click through all the annoying instructions" mentality are ending up at H:ITW, bypassing the quite prominent "create account" button that appears to unregistered users above the sandbox links, and ending up creating the drafts we're encountering here (those who do create an account are instead directed to a sandbox in their userspace).

These sandboxes are designed to show the basics of wikimarkup, not for people to start drafting a page, since the people encountering these are not yet ready to make pages; adding a {{Submit}} button would just overwhelm the AfC folks, who are quite overwhelmed enough as is. I've added the line It may be deleted after a period of inactivity; please do not use it to draft an article or create anything else you wish to last. to help reinforce the point and give us easier justification for deleting them. As for using WP:Sandbox instead, I don't know of any way we could do that while retaining the functionality of preloading interesting example markup (it'd require the ability to make a link that clears out the existing content of a page and replaces it with a preload, and I think that's currently impossible). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted about 8 or 9 of these "sample pages" and they have all been gibberish, there has been no attempt to create an article. The editors are clearly testing out editing as if the pages were sandboxes, not draft articles. I don't think a link should lead to the creation of these pages for new editors but it's not a huge problem, I see 3 or 4 sample pages a week. But still it's an odd choice to invite the editor to create a sample page rather than sending them to the Sandbox or to their own sandbox but I guess I understand with Sdkb's explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As I recall these pages are the result of editors without accounts (IP editors) following whichever tutorial it is that has this link. Editors with accounts are directed to their own sandbox, but IP editors don't have sandboxes (or maybe this is because a certain magic word doesn't work for IPs so the template can't populate). Maybe they should be directed to the general Wikipedia:Sandbox instead? They can learn the basics of wikimarkup there, and a bot already cleans up that page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58:@Liz: I brought this up earlier at the Village Pump; my main complaint about these pages is that they technically constitute a misuse of draft-space, which is intended for work-in-progress articles and not nonsense pages or other stuff that editors have no intention of submitting. As such, they regularly get tagged for speedy deletion, and this will surely spook new editors who thought they were playing by the rules. I think they should definitely be subpages of some other pages to avoid premature deletion, such as Wikipedia talk:Sandbox for IP users. Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Given how infrequently these appear, establishing any formal policy/guidelines just reeks of WP:CREEP. Legitimately abandoned pages can be deleted via WP:CSD#G2/WP:CSD#G13, but I'm skeptical it's a good use of anyone's time to suss these out on a (semi-)regular basis. -FASTILY 00:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Simplify archiving at ANI

We currently have a number of problems at AN, primarily ANI that I feel could be mitigated:

1. Because of the number and size of cases, the page requires a tremendous amount of time from admins and anyone else who wants to assist. (Right now, e.g., the page contains about 47,000 words, which take more than 5 hours just reading time.)
2. The size also creates other problems – see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Page size
3. Partly in an attempt to address #1 and #2, we employ a multitude of ways to archive the page. This causes more work than necessary and even makes closing counterproductive. All of this also reduces transparency, which is a problem, given that many users come here after experiences of frustration and mistrust.

These problems should be mitigated with the suggestion proposed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Archiving only closed threads on ANI. ◅ Sebastian 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Strange page

Any ideas what Template talk:Badtitle/ApiErrorFormatter::getDummyTitle is? It could be speedied but how are people finding it? Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the page, but editors are probably using quarry: with sql like this -FASTILY 02:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The edits seem more typical of new users though. Maybe ask at the technical village pump? Graham87 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena RfC

I'm requesting that this RfC at Talk:Kiki Camarena be re-closed. S Marshall's close stated that this text [27] did not have consensus for inclusion at Kiki Camarena; the close ignored available reliable sources and directly contradicted a clear RfC consensus:

1. . WP:CONSENSUS - 6 out of 9 editors argued that the text should be included in the article body and lead, and 5 out of 6 non-involved editors argued the same.
2. . Editors arguing for inclusion noted that WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously" (e.g. [28][29][30][31]), and that arguments against inclusion were based on WP:OR.

S Marshall ignored both media and academic sources, and the consensus of editor arguments, in his close, effectively using the close as a supervote. He has acknowledged that his close opposed the editorial judgement of the community contributing to the RfC on his talk page: "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved" [32]. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse Close The closer ruled, in several cases in question 2, lack of a consensus in support of an edit which is qualitatively different than a consensus against said edit; it seems consistent with the flow of discussion, and consideration of some include !votes which were more or less WP:VAGUEWAVEs. The closer's Talk page comment is ambiguous and could be interpreted in several ways; I don't think it's a smoking gun of supervoting. (Also, on the matter of question #3 I'm not getting the same numbers as the challenger; by my count, only three of nine editors explicitly supported adding text to the lead.) That said, the closer's judgment on Q4 seems to be on a question that wasn't asked in the RfC and didn't naturally emerge in discussion. However, it appears simply to be the editor's personal advice for next steps. Finally, the editor's decision on Question 1 doesn't appear to be in dispute by the challenger. Chetsford (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC); edited 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This is at least the third time a close by S Marshall has been brought here for review since June. Both previous reviews resulted in overturns (see here and here) after consensus developed that SM supervoted in his close. Based on my initial reading of this new discussion, that appears to be the case once again. -- Calidum 04:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• In fact, if you examine User:S Marshall/RfC close log and its archives, you'll see that my closes have been reviewed many times on the admininistrator's noticeboard since 2014, and on the vast majority of occasions, I've been resoundingly endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: Darouet misrepresents what I said on my talk page, he misrepresents my close, and he totally misrepresents the arithmetic. Chetsford has it right.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The RfC was a simple one: "Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least, [33] and based on these sources?" The link that explains "this text at least" includes lead text that summarizes the issue. Fully six editors asked to "include" the text, and only a tortured distortion of their comments can argue that these "include" votes implied inclusion of some of the text, but not other parts.
  • As I already stated, 5 out of 6 non-involved editors endorsed inclusion.
  • S Marshall, as to your own comment on your talk page - what did you mean when you wrote "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved", other than that you disagreed with the editorial judgements of editors commenting on the RfC? At best Chetsford states your comment "is ambiguous," and you've offered no other interpretation. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not the numbers at all, Darouet. Don't count the words in bold: read. In fact that was a near-unanimous consensus to include the disputed information. When closing I observed that all the editors who said "include" were talking about the principle of including it. None of the editors who said "Oppose as written" were opposed to including it -- their objections were to your specific wording. And that's why my first finding was to include the disputed information.
      However, in that whole discussion, the only editor who supported your exact wording was you, and there was substantial and well-argued opposition to it. For this reason, in my finding #2, you are required to engage with the opposing editors and find a wording that includes the disputed information while respecting their well-founded concerns.
      And what I meant by my other remark is that I hope editors in this close review display better editorial judgment than in other recent disputes. I don't mind being overturned by the community: it's happened to everyone who's got any business closing discussions of this kind. But I dislike being overturned by people who've !voted without reading, understanding and reflecting on the disputed discussion, as has happened to me several times of late.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      So in your view, the editors who wrote "oppose as written" supported including the section but not as written by the proposer, and the editors who wrote "include" also supported including the section but not as written by the proposer? Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      • Levivich summarizes the absurdity of the close perfectly - editors supporting inclusion by a 2:1 margin are worse than ignored - their comments and reasoning are reversed. It’s a catch-22. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Let me break down my reasoning in more detail for you, Levivich.

1. Darouet writes an RfC in which he proposes to include six (6) paragraphs about alleged CIA complicity in the torture and murder of an American citizen.
2. Half a dozen editors support him.
3. Three editors pop up to oppose the specific wording that Darouet proposes. The concerns about wording are generally expressed late in the debate.
4. A large discussion ensues, with Darouet participating very heavily indeed, but little input from his previous supporters.

So I arrive and ask myself how to close it. Noting point (1), I decide to close it with utmost caution. Noting point (2), I close it in favour of including the disputed information. Noting points (3) and (4), I decide that although the disputed information may be included, the specific wording Darouet proposes doesn't enjoy consensus support and must be tweaked in consultation with the opposers, so as to take account of their concerns. Then I write this up as an RfC close and supply a few ancillary directions which are meant to enable Darouet to add the disputed information without having to go to a second RfC about exact wording.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks a lot simpler to me: an edit was proposed, and six editors were in favor of the edit while three were in favor of including the content in some form but not as written. There was no policy-based reason to discount the !votes of those who supported making the edit. That's consensus to include. Overturn to "include". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am one of the non-involved editors brought to the RfC by RS/N. The closing editor makes several clear policy errors, and is egregiously partial:

1. Suitability as closer.

In their closing, the editor states The claim that the CIA was somehow involved or connected with Camarena's murder is of course an extraordinary one, and it requires in-text attribution to a specific source as well as an inline citation that directly supports the claim. The proposed addition is also long enough to raise concerns that it might give undue prominence to what may well be no more than a conspiracy theory. The notion that the claim, supported by multiple peer-reviewed academic sources, is of course an extraordinary one, is either based on an unsourced assertion by one involved editor, or a view that the closing editor brings to the discussion. Neither is appropriate. Similarly, the notion that it may well be no more than a conspiracy theory is either based on an unsourced assertion by one involved editor, or a view that closing editor brings to the discussion. Using assertions not based on policy, made by a single editor, as the basis for summarising consensus suggests a level of preconception, conscious or not, which disqualifies the editor as suitable for closing the RfC.

2. Misrepresenting !votes

The RfC question was not ambiguous: Should we include a section [...] using this text at least, and based on these sources? [my emphasis]. Those putting the case for inclusion were voting for the inclusion of the text by Darouet. The closing editor seeks to confuse the issue by creating four questions, where one was asked. They double down on this in the discussion above stating When closing I observed that all the editors who said "include" were talking about the principle of including it. The editor did not in fact make this observation, an astute choice on their part, given that any reasonable person can see it is obviously incorrect: they were talking about inclusion of Darouet’s text.

3. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.

Of the 5 non-involved editors supporting the inclusion of Darouet's text, all of them mention adequate reliable sources as the relevant policy, with 3 mentioning the prohibition on original research negating the extensive unsourced arguments against inclusion. All of which is ignored in the close. A disinclination to get involved in arguments amounting to attempts to disparage scholarly work, through amateur original research and attacks on the concept of scholarship (!) is surely understandable. Yet the closer claims here that they used this to infer a lack of consensus. The closing editor has not fulfilled what is expected as per the above.

Given that RfC closes are not binding, and the open bias in this instance, I don't see that the close has any relevance to the discussion about this disputed content. Cambial foliage❧ 15:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• –A content RfC is binding, unless and until consensus emerges that it's been superseded. That's why we have them at all: they're a way to resolve intractable content disputes. It's also the only reason why we need to have a mechanism for challenging and reviewing RfC closes. And closers are expected to show good judgment. Anyone who couldn't see that the allegation of CIA involvement in the torture and murder of a US citizen is an extraordinary one requiring extraordinary evidence, has no business closing an RfC of any kind whatsoever.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  No-one could accuse you of being shy in demonstrating your bias. Large parts of the English-speaking world would consider the possibility of such an occurrence as practically a truism, both in and out of scholarship. Yet you presume to know better, and pretend it is disinterested. As I said, totally unsuitable as a closer, something you ought to have taken the time to consider before seeking to make what has understandably been referred to as a "supervote". Cambial foliage❧ 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• A content RfC is binding, unless and until consensus emerges that it's been superseded. I mean, what that means is that a content RfC is binding until it isn't. Obviously we always have to go by consensus, but even the most uncontroversial RfC with the most clear and obvious outcome provides only a single snapshot onto consensus at a single moment in time. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Saying this is largely supported by academic sources is a stretch. One of the sources is a book published by an unknown author with only 1 piece published. One is a book review, another is a passing comment. The “RS” cited, that I checked, barely make any such and instead attribute it to one lawyer and a bunch of unnamed alleged witnesses and then pose a question. There is no evidence of any kind, rather pure speculation. This has all the hallmarks, and the distinct smell, of being a conspiracy theory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the place to "relitigate" the RfC, but to discuss the various ways in which the close did not follow policy. If you have further comments on the sources proposed, use the article talk page. Making grossly misleading, and flatly wrong, characterisations of the book (professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin ≠ unknown author) and other sources (two book reviews published in well-established peer-reviewed journals) will be equally unhelpful and pointless there. Cambial foliage❧ 15:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would argue that based on the closing rationale above, another RFC should be run immediately. Holding another RFC immediately after a previous one is unusual, but there are situations where it is appropriate, especially if a previous RFC plainly left key aspects unexamined, failed to resolve the core question, or if there were later developments that need consideration. And in this case the rationale for the close is Three editors pop up to oppose the specific wording that Darouet proposes. The concerns about wording are generally expressed late in the debate. A large discussion ensues, with Darouet participating very heavily indeed, but little input from his previous supporters. In other words, the reasoning is that there was a late development that most of the RFC didn't consider - but that means that the concerns used to decide it were only discussed at the RFC by four people at most and only for a very brief time; an RFC that barely considered something the closer identified as a key aspect is a weak consensus at best and can't reasonably be said to have resolved the underlying dispute. The appropriate thing to do in that case is to have a second RFC, running longer and with more participation, focusing on those concerns specifically. People above and below are warning against relitigating the RFC in a request to overturn it, which is valid, but the main reason those points are getting "re"-litigated here is because, due to being raised so late in the RFC, they were never properly litigated in the RFC itself, which indicates further discussion is needed. Also, I would argue that in situations like this (where an RFC has a point that seems significant raised late in its runtime), the best way to handle it is to relist it in order to get more discussion on that aspect rather than closing it in a way that disregards earlier opinions and basically decides it based only on the last handful - there is no rush. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: 4 out of 6 editors who favor including the text as written address the some or all concerns of the 3 editors who oppose it. I think we can accept a 2:1 RfC outcome while still refining the text in question, since the question posed by the RfC, Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least (diff), and based on these sources?, does not preclude refinement. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean I was one of the editors who advocated inclusion, and I don't think my own arguments were weak, so obviously (if we're counting noses) I'm all for overturning this. But directly overturning an RFC is often difficult; whereas a second RFC some four months after the first is quite easy to obtain given that the first one clearly hasn't brought the matter to a conclusion and part of the rationale for its disputed closure was that there were questions that the closer felt had mostly not been considered. Regardless of the propriety of the closure, I don't think anyone can reasonably look at that RFC or the ensuing discussion and call the consensus backing it strong or conclusive, and I don't see how S Marshell could argue against a second RFC after stating in his rationale that the first one lacked sufficient discussion of key points. So rather than turning this into a personal dispute with S Marshall, it might be simpler to just call for a second RfC that unambiguously asks things like "should this be in the lead", "is the sourcing broadly sufficient", and "should we use Darouet's text as a basis" - this has been going on for two years already, after all; another month to obtain a bit more certainty in terms of a conclusion won't kill anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn, obviously, after looking more closely. As Cambial said above, S Marshall did not, by my reading, make any attempt to argue in his closing statement that the made by people arguing for inclusion were stronger. The closest thing to it is an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE where he states The claim that the CIA was somehow involved or connected with Camarena's murder is of course an extraordinary one, and it requires in-text attribution to a specific source as well as an inline citation that directly supports the claim. The proposed addition is also long enough to raise concerns that it might give undue prominence to what may well be no more than a conspiracy theory. The kind of addition that could gain consensus would need to be succinct as well as specific in order to circumvent this concern. The majority of respondents stated (often with detailed, policy-based explanations of why) that they felt sourcing was sufficient, and S Marshall makes no effort to even acknowledge that, let alone explain how their arguments were flawed. Worse, the final sentence imposes requirements that were raised nowhere in the discussion - it is pure WP:SUPERVOTE. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Endorse Close: This looks like a good summary of the arguments made. It appears that question #2 was the contentious one. While I understand why some may have read that as "consensus against", I read it as "no consensus" with an understanding that it is an extraordinary claim and thus evidence in favor would have to be strong. Springee (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: why do you think the arguments of 6 editors supporting inclusion of the text as written don't amount to a consensus, when only 3 editors, by comparison, oppose inclusion? Is a 2:1 margin not enough to determine consensus? Furthermore, from the perspective of consensus, don't you think it's significant that non-involved editors supported inclusion by a 5:1 margin? Especially with a number of them stating in their arguments that they have reviewed oppose votes and find them unpersuasive, since they attempt to impeach reliable sources through OR? -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In cases where a simple vote count is appropriate, which this isn't, the convention is that below 65% in favour fails, above 75% passes, and 65%-75% is the closer's discretionary zone.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This aligns with my understanding. My feeling has been that, in pure numbers terms, 2/3rds is the consensus line (for or against) with less than 2/3rds being no-consensus. That line shifts or even is irrelvant if there is not a balance of arguments. Springee (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What is required to close an RfC in favor of a minority?

@S Marshall: your reasoning behind closing in support of "three editors" instead of "half a dozen" relies on what you characterize as later, well-reasoned RfC comments by a minority in the discussion. This is not an accurate reflection of the RfC outcome or talk page history: two of the three editors you side with in the RfC had already spent years [34][35][36] arguing against various versions of the text in question [37], which is what necessitated the RfC [38] in the first place. Non-involved editors supported inclusion of the text by a 5:1 margin (five [39][40][41][42][43] vs 1 [44]), and pointed out that the two editors objecting to the text based their arguments upon WP:OR objections to the reliability of all available academic sources.

1. Allegations of CIA involvement in Camarena's death were added to the article in 2013, when a number of former colleagues and agents began speaking to the press on the issue [45].
2. Those allegations remained in the article until exactly two years ago, when they were removed [46].
3. At that time I disputed the removal and looked into academic writing on the topic, where I found that multiple historians and regional specialists endorsed the allegations as likely true [47]. I re-wrote the content to fit with what historians have to say on the matter.
4. After nearly two years of talk page argument over whether ordinarily reliable sources can be reliable in this case [48] and having to deal with endless IP proxying or sockpuppetry [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58], I launched an RfC to just resolve the issue once and for all.
5. Uninvolved editors supported including the well-referenced text by a 5:1 margin.
6. S Marshall, closing the RfC, sides entirely with two involved editors who commented at the end of the RfC, and who had opposed the addition of the content for years prior to the RfC being held.

Contrary to Marshall's statement, those uninvolved editors who supported inclusion gave very strong arguments for keeping the disputed text. For example see this excellent comment [59], pointing out that no academic sources can be found disputing the allegations:

Include Certainly this information sourced to the Bartley/Bartley book and some of the commentaries in journals should be included in the body and in the lead. Particularly the favourable review by Vanessa Freije, which specifically endorses the evidence on Camarena and interpretation presented by the Bartleys, that was published in The Hispanic American Historical Review. Alongside the Journal of Latin American Studies and the LAP it is the preeminent English-language journal in the field, and cannot simply be disregarded. It is important that the information is presented, as the Bartleys do, as circumstantial but nevertheless compelling. To those others arguing at great (!!) length against inclusion: if you wish to dispute the articles supporting the Bartleys' findings you are welcome to submit an article for publication to either of the aforementioned journals or any of several other excellent scholarly publications. But WP Talk pages are not the place for your research and rambling cant on a subject in which you evidently have little expertise. See here. My only caveat would be that Freije's support for Bartley should also be cited.

Of course, I have no undying commitment to the text specifically as written. But after two years of arguing about it and receiving clear RfC support, it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I wish that S Marshall had understood the talk page history before overturning the RfC outcome, or had carefully read the RfC comments and consulted the works of professional historians and regional specialists who remain, after two years of disagreement, totally absent from Kiki Camarena. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Darouet, perhaps you can enlighten me: why did you disregard the close for some months, during which time you were actively editing, and then suddenly start posting colossal screeds about it on AN during the holiday period?—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I was teaching during the semester, and didn’t want to go to AN until the semester ended. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for saying that it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I now understand that this is your actual problem with the close, isn't it? You don't want to have to negotiate with them because you don't expect them to compromise?—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC was held after over a year of negotiations led to no resolution. Thank goodness at least that RfC editor comments so overwhelmingly supported available scholarship. I suggest that you consult that - this is, after all, an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to suggest that an editor must convince everyone (I note that you also made this error in your closure, stating The debate includes several participants who adopt complex and nuanced positions, and offer detailed and persuasive arguments in favour of them, but even after all these words, editors don't seem to be changing their minds in any very substantive way.) Consensus is a matter of discussion and negotiation, but some disputes are ultimately intractable and require outside opinions - that is part of the purpose of an RfC. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the RfC I gather that multiple editors supported inclusion on the basis of strong sourcing, then one comment came in refuting the sourcing as weak (which, honestly, reviewing the sourcing this seems accurate), and finally 2 comments implying they're open to mentioning it, but that it should be balanced with refutations of these claims. That seems to be the overall consensus: supporting inclusion of the point itself, but not necessarily the exact text proposed, and it should be balanced with sources refuting this CIA theory.

Comparing this to SM's close: I agree with Q/A #1 and #2, I think #3 was unclear / no discernible consensus. I'm not sure about QA #4 (cannot work on it in the live article), but this is a relatively minor point. I agree with the substance of the close; endorse close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• On the question of what is required to close an RfC in favor of a minority, guidance suggests that, at a bare minimum, the rationale for discarding some arguments should be elaborated. The closing editor in this case did not even make an attempt to do so. Cambial foliage❧ 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question: What do you think about the S Marshell's opinion that The kind of addition that could gain consensus would need to be succinct as well as specific in order to circumvent this concern? That is the part of the closure that leaped out to me most clearly as a WP:SUPERVOTE - it seems to set specific, unambiguous requirements that S Marshell would need to see in order to accept any consensus, but those requirements don't seem to be ones that anyone else in the discussion even brought up. To me, that's the most clear-cut hallmark of a supervote - a closer who comes in, looks over the dispute, and says "oh, I see what the conclusion to this should look like!" rather than assessing the actual opinions and arguments being made. Likewise, I do not actually see any new arguments being made in the final two !votes - after all, they were people who had participated significantly before; all their concerns about sourcing had been previously expressed and did not seem to convince anyone outside the closer. There are some situations where sourcing concerns could be so stark that it justifies disregarding people who say it's met, but again, S Marshell does not even attempt to make that argument. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• So, where the purpose of a content RfC is to resolve an intractable content dispute, the closer ought to try to show the parties how they can actually resolve it. The closer role is partly that of referee. At best, you make a clear finding for one side or the other, but where as closer you don't feel you can do that, then at second best you try to show the parties a way forward that gets to an edit that's acceptable to all sides without a second RfC. As a neutral party who's read the debate in detail, it's fairly often my practice to offer pointers about what kind of edit I feel could gain consensus. I mean, sure, I could have just gone "No consensus", hatted the discussion and moved on, but that's neither a decision nor a compromise and it just leaves everyone going in circles. I've been doing it for many years, it's SOP for me.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree with that view of the closer's role. The closer should summarize the discussion, not act as an arbiter of the dispute. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with that. But I also agree with the idea that a closer, especially in a case of no consensus, can offer possible paths forward. Not an RfC but I did a version of this today. The key for this to work, I think, is that needs to suggest rather than proscribe and also be specific enough to be valuable but general enough that you're not being prescriptive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's a pattern on Wikipedia where content disputes get deadlocked into a permanent "no consensus" state, and this is where tempers fray, people start feeling the other side is stalling or filibustering, and content disputes escalate into conduct disputes. The right RfC close can get past that. I didn't phrase that part of my close perfectly, but I'm confident that the principle of the "roadmap to consensus" approach is right.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Are you saying you believe that the actual outcome of that RFC was no consensus? You seem to have indicated it above, as well (I mean, sure, I could have just gone "No consensus", hatted the discussion and moved on, but that's neither a decision nor a compromise and it just leaves everyone going in circles. Because that was not, by my reading, how you closed it. A closer's role, first and foremost, is to assess consensus; if you (as I read your statements) you're confessing that you believed there was no consensus in the discussion, and you imposed a consensus regardless in order to guide people towards a specific outcome, then you're admitting that you closed it improperly. It is also completely improper for a closer to impose a compromise - either there is a consensus, in which case you determine the consensus; or there is not, in which case you close as no-consensus. If you saw no consensus and wanted to workshop a compromise you should have joined the discussion as a participant in the RFC, rather than trying to close it with a WP:SUPERVOTE towards your preferred consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, I was talking Levivich and Barkeep49 about RfCs in general. On this particular RfC, I don't currently have anything to add. I will, in due course, catch up with the sheer quantity of words that you and Darouet are posting, and may have something to add when I've read it all.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• But SM didn't close as no-consensus. He specifically found a consensus against a specific wording. If he did so while believing there was no consensus, then that was a misclose and needs to be overturned. If he wanted to join the discussion, he could have done so; if he felt he was qualified to mediate, he could have offered to do so. But attempting to impose consensus from above by declaring certain things as a consensus when they are not is abusing the role of closer. It certainly does nothing to resolve the discussion - I know that as someone who only casually participated in the discussion at the time, this absurd outcome has brought me into the discussion with a firm determination to reject SM's misclose or any proposed outcomes that rely on it, since it plainly does not represent any sort of consensus among editors (something SM seems to concede when he acknowledges that he should have at best closed it as a simple no-consensus.) Consensus-building needs to rely on actual discussions an debate; I can understand SM's frustration on seeing an intractable dispute, and his desire to cut through that by imposing an outcome from above (especially by ruling out outcomes that he personally finds unacceptable.) But a closer trying to impose an outcome only introduces additional toxicity and makes the process more difficult. No one who weighed in as an "include" in a discussion like that is likely to accept SM's close as accurate. That means that both sides of the dispute have even less incentive to concede or discuss - both sides are going to believe they have a consensus backing them, after all, and that a later RFC will back them up. Basically, resolving a dispute requires an accurate assessment of where things currently stand - when a closer fails to provide that, discussions are going to break down. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to your question, in my experience SM's closes sometimes mix determinations of consensus with his personal advice on what could achieve consensus. Both things have place in a close, but personal suggestions are not consensus. It's hard to tell, reading that, whether he means "it must be succinct to be added to the article" (which I think is what you've read it as, and that would be a supervote) and "I suggest parties try drafting a more succinct addition, which may address the concerns here, and testing that in a future discussion" (which is totally acceptable). I think he meant the latter, but it might've helped to clearly say that this was just advice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Luxofluxo unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Luxofluxo (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction and a topic ban from European Schools. These restrictions may be appealed on-wiki after 6 months. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for page protection

• COVID-19 pandemic in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Extended confirmed protection: Page is subjected to disruptive editing that includes addition of misinformation and un encyclopedic materials. 2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that happening right now on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Liz because it was extended protected and protection has expired. Recently a lot of material was removed due to being non encyclopedic thanks to AmandaNP for the cleanup. 2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B: per WP:PREEMPT, pages cannot be protected preemptively. 36.76.232.198 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about files

Hello. I need some help with the two files I uploaded yesterday. After receiving warnings from MifterBot, I followed the instructions, declared myself as the creator of the files as I took them with my phone's camera feature, and released them to public domain. Does anything else need to be done with these files before they are here to stay? 302 Views (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The file pages are still a bit sketchy; the copyright tags are there, but that's it. Using the {{Information}} template provides all required ... well, information . Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandals turning quality article into a stub

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

---

Hello. We are a group of four mother and former foster care youth who have tried to make some very important edits about child deaths, kids being beaten, and physical and sexual abuse in a state care system in Rhode Island. These stories have been all over the news. And we are scared that they are hiding the truth by deleting the sources and stories. This is very serious and it is documented by local and national news very reliable sources. Somehow our edit are met with anger and laughs. We need some help as no one will stop these bad editors and anyone who disagrees with them is instantly called a “sock puppet” and they are banned. There are editors who are making unwise edits here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_Department_of_Children,_Youth_%26_Families

When we tried to edit and reflect the truth of the DCYF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhode_Island_Department_of_Children,_Youth_%26_Families&oldid=997627374

I have tried to balance the article with national and local news sources from previous edits but these two or three editors keep reverting it including User:ProcrastinatingReader. Please, take a moment to review our edits and see why they may be valuable to the article. The talk page did nothing for another user and my friend was just called a “sock puppet” of another user who tried to show the truth on DCYf, when we have nothing to do with her/him. It seems like anyone who edits this article or anyone who tries to reform that system is not wanted on Wikipedia. That’s not what I thought Wikipedia was about. Anyway, if an admin could stop the vandalism I would be over the moon. People can make edits with reliable sources about Trump, about Celebrities, about politicians, about groups and churches, Boy Scout abuse, church abuse, Scientology abuse. Why does a state agency get special treatment when they are constantly in the news for hurting or nearly killing kids? Yakuza9 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You are a group of people, you say? And you are here to right great wrongs? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by Primefac - sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Requested unnecessary page move rollback

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

---

The Superior (film) page was arbitrarily moved to Draft:Superior (film) by a novice user. The film has already been completed so it is not necessary to do this, this is only done when the film is not yet in the shooting phase. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. In the future please use WP:RM/TR. In any case, please let the user know that the move was wrong, per the relevant guideline. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Avengeramb333

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

---

They literally spend all of their time deleting canonly gay characters and erasing their partners just to be homophobic. The main edits they make are of castiel and dean’s wiki pages. But I can’t edit it back because it’s “protected against vandalism.” Like no it’s being vandalized by a homophobe. Actions need to be taken. This shouldn’t be tolerated. I’ve had enough of the straights try erasing my existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.24.90 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

At a glance this looks like a run of the mill content dispute with fanon vs. cited content; the OP (who seems to have since made an account) has continued casting aspersions at Avengeramb333's talk page - where they did not notify them of this discussion as is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is Avengeramb333 responding. As Bushranger pointed out this is the run of the mill content dispute with fanon vs. cited content. I'm thankful that User:The Bushranger has notified me about this for I was not notified by the complainant as required. I would like to point out that I am not a homophobe as 141.126.24.90 claims me to be. I'm just following the facts about certain fictional characters according to the content they originated from and not the fanfiction. (I would also like to point out that personally I do not like being labelled or my sexuality assumed by people who do not know me.) Avengeramb333 07:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it's interesting this IP user accuses Avengeramb333 of "erasing their existence", when they themselves made this edit with the summary "Ace people have not faced any sort of hate crime. Literally ever for being ace. as a bi person this is extremely offensive to try and say they have"... as an asexual person, that almost sounds like someone attempting to erase a person's identify.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well it seems that the account (Outlawedredhood) has been blocked and Dean Winchester has been semi-protected. Case closed? Or does the IP need to be temporarily blocked as well? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like things were resolved. If they are resolved how do we close it? Does someone delete it? Does this section get locked? Avengeramb333 04:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It can be closed (preferably by someone uninvolved), or it can simply be left for the archive bot to grab in a few days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Would a range block help?

Would a range block solve what's going on at Talk:List of lighthouses in China? I think the fact the IP edits stopped dead for two days and then suddenly started back up again yesterday is further evidence this is a single person. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What a bizarre discussion. I agree completely that much of this is very likely to be one person cycling through IP addresses - all the IPs I've checked do geolocate to Hong Kong, but given the topic that shouldn't be a surprise either way. There are a few very tight ranges - 210.6.10.130 and 210.6.10.148, for example, or 219.76.18.75 and 219.76.18.74 - but overall the person seems to be deliberately using as many different local connections as possible, or the ISPs in use just have very dynamic addresses. I cannot spot a useful range to block that would stop this without collateral damage, continued semi-protection of the talk page seems to be the only alternative. ~ mazca ^talk 13:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The ranges of the IPs I see causing disruption are 210.6.0.0/18 and 219.76.0.0/16. Looking at the contributions for 219.76.0.0/16 show a smaller chance of collateral damage, but the contributions for 210.6.0.0/18 show a high chance of collateral damage. I'd be comfortable blocking the /16 range, but not so much with the /18. Hope this helps! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! —valereee (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User: Indy beetle User:Brigade_Piron

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

---

When i said wikipedia is becoming like Marxists.org becaue of the selective writing of history, Indy beetle (talk) told me that i am a "whiny little bitch" i think that is a clear personal attack and reason to be blocked...

His exact text Maybe you could provide sources instead of being a whiny little bitch? I’m no Marxist, and your complaints do not strengthen your argument. Show me some sources, and I’ll consider writing an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Congolese_Independence_Speech#can_someone_make_a_page_for_King_Baudoins_speech

The same with (talk) who insults me on the fact that i cant spell, is that the way users treath other users here? with Personal attacks? please do something about both of them, thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This from you - You are trying to rewrite history here by highlighting certain events, and silencing others, with the cultural marxist, self hating, far left, anti-colonial, the past is evil narative... - is quite an accusation and doesn’t strike me as very polite. Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, although its wording is regrettable, the response seems completely appropriate in both tone and content, given the OP's behavior. If you don't want to be treated like an ass, don't act like one. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also this is pretty clearly the same person; edit summaries include "yes your totalitarian Stalinist strategies are known to me" and "Please keep that Amlerican racism in America". You seem like a really charming guy. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's make something clear right now. An IP account had posted a request on the Talk:Congolese Independence Speech page (which is about a speech by Patrice Lumumba) requesting that we write an article on the speech delivered by King of the Belgians Baudouin at the same ceremony. I responded very plainly: "Much attention has been given to the significance of Lumumbas speech, including rhetorical analysis. I don’t think there’s enough material to prove the kings speech is independently notable.". User:KingBaudoin then appears and responds with not an attack on Wikipedia, but an attack on me: You are trying to rewrite history here by highlighting certain events, and silencing others, with the cultural marxist, self hating, far left, anti-colonial, the past is evil narative... claiming that the independance speech of king Baudouin is not relevant or naotable, is simply ridiculous and false! For some background, the Belgian royalist crowd has been upset ever since the summer, when King Leopold's statues started coming down and they've taken to Wikipedia to complain about Marxism. I for one am tired of being called a "Marxist" or being told I'm engaging in Marxist revisionism by someone because I won't do exactly as they say. I also reiterated my first point, saying I'd change my mind if KingBaudoin would provide sources. They haven't. Please close this case. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that the KingBaudoin feels as s/he does. I thought Indy beetle's choice of words was unfortunate and was genuinely trying to be conciliatory in my original comment in spite of the fact that KingBaudoin was and is obviously abusing WP:AGF. My reference to spelling was, perhaps, a cheap shot but hardly constitutes a "personal attack". —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

pointing out to someone that someone is rewriting history is not a personal attack, it is what it is and i gave a clear reason for it also, you can then disagree and say why you disagree, but insulting me with the words "whiny little bitch" is not apropiate and not a reason or argument!

JBL and Malcolmxl5 are trying to make the personal attack less significant by trying to make me look bad, its a very cheap and old distraction trick comparable with: when A guy rappes a woman, and then later when he got caught tries to justify it with, yes i did it BUT SHE WAS RUDE ALSO... 2 wrongs dont make a right..

And user JBL insults me again by claiming i am a royalist angry about Leopold II statues, what does the speech of King Baudouin have to do with statues of leopold II, and btw today i upload a poster against Leopold II, your false claims makes no sense, and yes if you highlight only certain events, and selectivly try to erase others, you are operating as a cultural Marxist, this has nothing to do with Leopold II statues, and i am not the only person critisising wikipedia for benig Marxist, just google it, you will find countless articles, not to mention on what is said on social media about wikipedia, but hey i guess they are all royalist angry about Leopold II... but again this is not a reason to name me like this, i request this person to be sanctioned as he is not above the rules!

to say to someone that one is a "whiny little bitch" is a clear personal attack and insult.... just as making fun with one spelling but There is clearly a double standard here, when i would make a comment like that i would be blocked for sure, but the senior editors at Wikipedia here have different rules... this is not right! And i demand action! KingBaudoin (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

and now i notice that Brigade Piron is even calling me a woman, with this text "::I am sorry that the KingBaudoin feels as s/he does." when my name is clearly that of a male.. i guess some can say everything on wikipedia, and others nothing... and then you complain that people compare wikipedia with Marxism and stalinism... KingBaudoin (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1. This was closed. Re-opening it is not a great idea.
• 2. You can demand action all you wish, that does not mean anything will happen.
• 3. Using "s/he" means "she or he" - i.e. the other editor is actually being courteous, and not assuming you are any particular gender.
• 4. I am re-closing it. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

General Sanctions notification

There is a proposal to change the wording of our GS notifications. Your input is requested at the template's talk page. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Emily Murphy and other things

I request an administrator to review this section, and the editor who has written an extensive rant against a person related to the article. They are currently the subject of discretionary sanctions in the topic area. I don't wish for this to become a discussion about the editor but if this is in the wrong place, please let me know. I haven't notified the editor for that reason as well, but if it is still necessary then I will do so. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip, you still have to notify them. I took a look, but as I was involved at Emily Murphy, I can't act as an admin there, but I commented. —valereee (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That person was Donald.Trump. The article was about he and his subordinates trying to steal an American President election. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79 has doubled down at that talk, now calling Emily Murphy an actual criminal and accusing me of having a COI because I'm telling them they shouldn't libel her. Special:Diff/998247947 —valereee (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 has marched into this particular section of Wikipedia apparently with the agenda of vilifying President Trump even above and beyond the scope of the currently relatively NPOV article. I realize that Onetwothreeip wants to avoid making this AN an editor referendum, but I believe that Arglebargle79's conduct does need to be examined in full, particularly on that talk page. I am concerned that the editor is here to soapbox.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And tripling down: Special:Diff/998293365 —valereee (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for the continuing BLP violations and general failure to Get It, as a normal admin action. Any admin may do adminny things with the block. (This action does not preclude the ban discussion below.) --Izno (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from AP32

• I'll note that Arglebargle79 is already under a restriction for AP32: indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, and obligation to discuss reverts on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation. When I warned them a few minutes ago about BLP violations at AP32 articles on their talk, this was their response: Special:Permalink/998314071#January 2021. I propose a topic ban from AP32.
• Support as proposer —valereee (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support After I saw the above message I tried to leave some guidance, as an uninvolved editor, on the Talk page [60] suggesting they back off a bit. My hope was that this would arrest the need for a TBAN before it came to that point. They not only seemed to double-down with their next edits but then left a message on my Talk page [61] saying they had obtained information, via Twitter, of a "riot" that was going to happen in the next couple days and they needed to get the word out through Wikipedia [62]. There was also a somewhat confusing and (and I hesitate to use this word lightly) incoherent metaphor in which they compared their comments to Topol's 1971 musical film Fiddler on the Roof. At the very least this seems to indicate they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but are, instead, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The 1RR has only seemed to succeed in pushing the disruption "underground" - from article space to the Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and also support the aforementioned indef block due to WP:IDHT to the extreme.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How do we feel about accounts that only seek deletion?

Like this one: [63]

If this hasn't been covered before, I would invite both admin and non-admin opinions to get a broad perspective. Thank you.

Samsara 09:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Example user notified of discussion [64] Samsara 09:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have no problem with an AfD SPA. Accounts of this nature are consistent with our policies and guidelines as I understand them. Our WP:EDITING policy says that "Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help." In this case the thing the editor is bringing to the table is a willingness to ferret-out content that doesn't meet some aspect of our policies or guidelines, or at least what they perceive to be content that doesn't meet some aspect of our policies or guidelines. Our WP:VOLUNTEER supplement establishes there are no minimum participation thresholds that need to be crossed, presumably allowing someone to hyperfocus on AfDs, or even nanofocus just on AfDs that meet the deletion criteria to the exclusion of those that would warrant keep !votes. That said, I think it may be too early to describe Foonblace as an AfD SPA since they've only made 33 lifetime edits. Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I should mention that it is a little unfair to single me out as "only seeking deletion" - I have made other contributions to Wikipedia also. My reason for seeking deletion for the pages in question is that I genuinely do not think that their subject matter meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and, if a page was created about them now, would be removed for that reason. There is possibly a wider discussion to be had in fact about pages for F/OSS projects in the same vein, many of which have existed for well over ten years while the projects they're about died shortly after they were created. Foonblace (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between longevity and impact, and impact is usually more relevant to notability. Samsara 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• So long as they understand the relevant guidelines (such as notability) and add useful input to the deletion discussions, I don't see an issue. Users are here to contribute to the encyclopedia in different ways than others, whether it be creating and expanding articles, reverting vandalism, or discussing the deletion of pages. If what they're doing benefits the project, I see no problem with it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• If there's nothing disruptive about the deletion nominations themselves, why would it be a problem? Finding inappropriate articles is a valuable contribution to the encyclopaedia—otherwise we wouldn't have a deletion policy—and restricting that work to editors who have somehow qualified themselves by doing other tasks would be against the basic ethos of the project. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Editing a compilation of documents involves not just deciding what to put in, but also what not to. Unless there is something actually wrong with the deletion nominations, trimmers perform a useful function on this encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I feel substantially kinder about them than I do about the wikidata trolls trying to subvert and twist ENWP for their own personal financial benefit. Or the commons editors who seem more interested in keeping pictures of underage penises around. In comparison an editor who spends a substantial amount of their time nominating articles for deletion is way down my list of 'people not wanted here'. Behind people who spam create articles from badly sourced databases, cosmetic bot operators & mime artists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for calling me a troll and suggesting I am getting financial benefits for twisting ENWP. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Although I agree with you that wikidata is dismal trash, and so are database-scrape permastubs, I think accusing people of shilling is a bit much. Reyk _YO! 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The second sentence of OID's comment parses correctly as "that subset of commons editors who ...." The syntax of the first sentence is less clear, but it seems more likely to me that it should be parsed "that subset of wikidata editors who are trolls trying ...", no? --JBL (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  While I know Wikidata is a rather sore point here, taking that as a blanket statement against all WD editors does seem to be reaching. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I feel the same away about accounts that only seek deletion as I do about accounts that only create articles. They're all welcome contributors like everyone else. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin introducing source restriction

Admin Valereee has introduced a source restriction at the Syrian Kurdistan article:[65][66]

According to herself, she doesn't know if she has the authority to introduce such a restriction: [67]

Does anyone know if she has that authority? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Remedies does not list page-level sanctions except for 1RR, so I am not sure. On the other hand, the source restrictions seem reasonable to me, and may be we should have a discussion and amend the list of sanctions.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe it is reasonable, because there are older historical reliable sources that should be able to be used and discussed at talkpages without restriction and without fear of getting banned for even discussing them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

To wit: 1 2 3 —valereee (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I understand the impulse, but this is an overreach. The GS for the Syrian Civil War only authorise editor sanctions, not page ones, and more importantly, saying what sources are acceptable is very much an editorial decision not an administrative one. Excluding sources written before 2000 is going to significantly affect the article's content – maybe for the better, I don't know the topic area well enough to comment, but it shouldn't be up to one admin to make that call. – Joe (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe, just FTR, not trying to argue with you: not excluding other sources altogether. Excluding them for disputed content. Like what the area is called, which has taken now approximately months to come to a decision which, if we'd only been including recent scholarship, there'd have been no need to argue about for months using recent news coverage that occasionally called it "Kurdish areas of Syria" or whatever. There is ample recent scholarly work. —valereee (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  You can easily see how this could be gamed, though: somebody finds a historical detail they don't like, appropriately cited to a pre-2000 source, edits it out and boom, now it's "disputed" and the bar for re-adding it is much stricter than projectwide policy supports. More to the point, your comments here and on Supreme Deliciousness' talk page really sound like an editor debating content, not an admin discussing conduct. I get that this must be an extremely difficult topic area to do admin work in, but maybe it's time to declare yourself involved and let someone else handle it? – Joe (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"somebody finds a historical detail they don't like, appropriately cited to a pre-2000 source, edits it out and boom, now it's "disputed"... Joe, thank you so much for this comment, this is EXACTLY what is going on right now, large amount of important historical information has been removed from the Syrian Kurdistan article because some claim the sources are old and with this new restriction its basically impossible to restore it, you get blocked for even trying to discuss a source at the talkpage.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• When an editor repeatedly tries to add a secret internal 1946 CIA report to the article to support that "Kurds had equal rights, received fair treatment", and argues it's an RS, that is not a content dispute, that's a conduct issue. When the editor argues that it's a reliable source because it's a secret internal government document, that's not a content dispute, that's a conduct issue.

  Also, there is no important information about Syrian Kurdistan for which there is only pre-21st-century sourcing available. Doesn't exist. This is a global political hotspot we're talking about here, not some obscure topic. I do not see how it could be gamed. I do see, however, how our processes have been gamed in the absence of these editor and page restrictions.

  I can't disagree more strongly with your suggestion that val is or should declare herself involved. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The existence of a restriction doesn't mean it must be enforced. If it's obviously gaming, no admin needs to enforce it (notwithstanding someone would have to revert it and put themselves in the line of fire for that). If it gets gamed, the restriction gets altered or removed as appropriate, but it could well be that nobody thought of doing so until now. Anyway, maybe the real solution here is a variation on the standard boilerplate "consensus required" provision (WP:CRP)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The existence of a restriction doesn't mean it must be enforced. Yes, actually, it does. If we make restrictions and don't enforce them then there is zero point in having made the restriction. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  We don't block everyone who passes 3RR. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, @Primefac. Admins use discretion all the time. I've many times decided not to enforce something because I thought the editor simply needed some information. I've probably informed editors for various infractions more often than I've dealt out some enforcement. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Shorter reply here: I remember a case where El C asked an editor to self-revert multiple times on usertalk & AN (or some noticeboard) before giving them a block. Nobody criticised that. I think it's totally proper for admins to use their brains when enforcing policy or restrictions - they aren't robots. The best resolution in any case is an editor rectifying themselves, not a block/ban (which has ime never changed someone's attitude), and should be encouraged. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I should probably clarify - I misinterpreted the statement to mean "we can create a restriction and then ignore it"; obviously IAR and common sense exists. I was saying that we shouldn't be making sanctions if we don't plan on enforcing them in the future. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Let me just add that I think a word with an editor who breaches a restriction is a method of enforcement. Sometimes it's highly effective and sometimes utterly pointless. But so are other methods of enforcement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich: An editor repeatedly adding a source against consensus is a conduct issue. Whether that source is reliable in the first place is a content issue. Some of valereee's recent comments seem to be veering towards debating the latter, but if she doesn't consider herself involved that's her call. What you say about pre-2000 sources might be correct (although it seems rather implausible to me; have you checked all of them?), but a sweeping statement like that is not something that should be turned into a page-specific policy, enforceable with blocks, by an individual admin. – Joe (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I dunno, I very, very strongly disagree with your source-agnostic approach. It's not like, and this is how I perceive you approaching this problem: "Well, Editor A has a URL, and Editor B has a URL, therefore it's a content dispute." It matters what sources editors are bringing into the conversation. A source like a 1946 CIA report is so obviously not an RS for "Kurds were treated equally" (which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what all modern scholarship says) that anyone claiming a 1946 CIA report is an RS is exhibiting CIR problems. Can you imagine if I went to a PIA article and tried to include a CIA report that said Palestinians had equal rights? How would that go? Would I even make it to AE before being TBANed?

  "Whether the source is reliable in the first place" is not a content issue, if the source obviously fails to meet our PAGs. Somebody trying to include primary sources, unreliable sources (like blogs), etc., that's a conduct issue, not a content issue. A content dispute is only a content dispute if RSes are on both sides of the dispute. A dispute over whether an RS is an RS is only a dispute if it's in good faith. Someone arguing that Stormfront is an RS is not engaged in a content dispute; that's a conduct issue. Someone arguing that court records are RS, same thing. Someone arguing that a 1946 CIA report is RS... same thing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe how in the world is saying "a 1946 CIA report is not a reliable source for anything other than what that report says" a content issue? That is a straight statement of policy, used in context. The statement of policy used in general would be, and I quote, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Is that the kind of thing you meant when you accused me of being involved? —valereee (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee: As RoySmith has also said below, assessing the reliability of a source (or body of sources) is a content issue. Even if it's a straightforward application of policy – interpreting and applying content policies is something we do with our editor hats on, not our admin ones. Regardless, I didn't intend my comment above to be an accusation and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. What I tried to suggest that you consider for yourself whether you've become involved in these disputes. You would be far from the first admin to begin intervening in a contentious topic area as a neutral admin but become involved over time, and some of your comments here suggest a degree of burnout with the area that for me would also be an indicator that it's time to step back from it. It's up to you, and since I've clearly rubbed you the wrong way, I'm not going to press the issue further. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether "a 1946 CIA report is not a reliable source for anything other than what that report says" is a content issue when "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" is literal quoted policy. The sentence could be used as an example of that quoted policy.

  I am so neutral about that article that I still haven't actually bothered to read it. But a well-intentioned and experienced editor -- an admin, no less, someone who had to know what they were doing -- has questioned my neutrality, and continues to question it, and IMO that stops it right there. You don't have to "press the issue further." You already pressed it exactly as far as you had to. So please @Joe Roe I hope you'll go help fill in there for a while, as the article is pretty desperately in need of admin help. You break it, you bought it! :D —valereee (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe, I completely disagree that I'm involved, but if even one other well-intentioned experienced editor thinks I am, I consider that to be reason enough to stop working as an admin in a particular place. I hope someone else will come in and start working there, because at this point I've been basically it. Pinging @CaptainEek and @Girth Summit who are the other admins somewhat familiar there, but Joe, you should seriously consider getting some familiarity there before you make that kind of an accusation. —valereee (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Also, @Joe Roe, diffs. —valereee (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Here's a fun game! This is what Talk:Syrian Kurdistan looked like when I showed up with absolutely zero interest in editing in that area. I still have zero interest in editing there. I have zero opinion on what the article should look like. But if the simple fact I've tried to admin in a difficult place makes me involved, Joe, maybe you'd like to help out there? Until you've been there for long enough to actually have some expertise, in which case you'll then be involved. Whee! Next up? —valereee (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I hit on this because I was needing to block so many editors at Syrian Kurdistan for disruptive editing because they'd brought lower quality sources, including most recently Supreme Deliciousness with a 1946 CIA report, and they wanted to argue and argue and argue and argue those sources were just as good as the ample available recent scholarship. And I do mean ample -- there's an entire list pinned at the talk page of like 20 recent scholarly books published by academic presses. I wanted those editors to be able to return to editing -- they're well-intentioned, they just have such a strong bias that apparently even SD with their 20K edits can't see that, no, a 1946 CIA report is not a reliable source for anything but what the report itself says and certainly not for determining what is "historically impossible" because that report doesn't agree with a 2020 book by an eminent scholar. And we don't use news reports to argue that a scholar is wrong. Sorry, do I sound like I'm at my wits' end? I am a bit. Like I said, I wanted to let those editors return to editing, and making this declaration seemed like it might be a way to do that, because if they start bringing a 90-year-old primary document in there again and start arguing for its reliability again I am going to have to block them again. We have ample scholarship, and that's the most reliable source we can find. We don't need recent news coverage except for recent events that aren't covered yet by scholars. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• The comments of Ymblanter and Joe Roe above are exactly why I said last year we shouldn't have WP:GS subpages with their own text that go out of sync with each other. That text has no basis in consensus. It was unilaterally added by one editor years ago, presumably to be more helpful than linking to the main DS page. The fatal flaw with this is that it falls out of sync, especially since nobody cares to maintain those pages. There was community consensus to impose sanctions akin to WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based. So the idea that WP:GS/SCW doesn't authorise page restrictions is just not true.
  Would this page restriction be valid for ARBPIA / in the ArbCom DS system? I think yes. I've seen many pages carry DS/GS restrictions of this sort. It's unconventional, but it could be appealed and overturned by AN if unreasonable. The policy for placing page restrictions says: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page [...] page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. This seems to fit squarely within those parameters. If this isn't legitimate, then we should overturn a bunch of other page sanctions and maybe clarify that it isn't acceptable in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I don't think this sanction would be acceptable under ARBPIA or other ArbCom-authorised DS either. You would have to ask the current committee for a definitive answer of course, but for what it's worth I drafted the current version of ARBPIA. Which brings up a related point on why community general sanctions are a bad idea: with ArbCom sanctions, there is always an explicit, codified procedure to reference and clear routes for clarifying any ambiguities (AE and ARCA). With general sanctions, you have to refer back to a much less structured discussion (or the closer's interpretation of it), and clarifications have to be done at an AN free-for-all like this one. – Joe (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't Arbcom institute source restrictions in the Poland and MEDRS cases? (And weren't you on at least one of those committees?) Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I voted against the source restrictions in Holocaust in Poland, as it happens. And I don't think there was one in Medicine (if that's what you mean)? Regardless, ArbCom is a committee with extraordinary powers. Not one administrator. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there is no procedural error here, in response to comments above. It's allowed under the rules of GS and such a restriction is not unique (example). Whether this particular restriction is acceptable, well, it's the same process for any restriction or GS sanction: it could be appealed and overturned by AN if unreasonable (that would be this discussion). All of these are done by "one administrator" under the auspices of DS.

As for the rest of your comment, I used to agree but I'm not sure I do anymore. I don't agree with the idea that there are many different processes for DS/GS around, and that closers' interpretation is relevant -- the rules for all of them stem from WP:AC/DS. The wording on any WP:GS subpage has no consensus, and was never part of any GS discussion iirc from the last time I read them over. Discussions authorising either name an ArbCom case to copy (which authorises "standard discretionary sanctions"), or uses the text "std. community authorised general sanctions" (the same thing) - the very first one explicitly mirrored ArbCom. Second, I'm not sure I agree that arbs are a much more stable proposition to handle the DS system. See AN's talk page and protection log for a recent example why (by no means the only example, simply a convenient one). If we don't want admins to do this, then ArbCom should amend the WP:AC/DS wording to make that clear.

As for the principles, and on content decisions vs admin decisions, DS always seemed to toe the line (a skeptic may argue that it's the point, so the Committee doesn't have to do so itself). Moratoriums on bringing forward RfCs, literally stopping people (sometimes for years!) from even having a discussion to build consensus are content decisions too, but we still accept the validity of the concept. Generally, bludgeoning people with crappy sourcing is disruptive. The Syrian Kurdistan talk page is too much for my head so I don't have the knowledge to know what's necessary there, but ime I've found valereee to make sound and appropriate admin decisions resulting in toxic editing areas becoming less toxic, and (generally) I don't think it's appropriate for this board to unnecessarily micromanage an admin who tries to resolve an intractable dispute that few admins want to touch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:GS authorizes page restrictions. SCW authorizes a page restriction (1RR) and the log includes other page restrictions in years past. Page restrictions including source restrictions have been used in other GS and DS areas. This so called "restriction" isn't a restriction anyway, it's just a formalization of what is already written at WP:RS AGE. Of course this is allowed, rather explicitly by our PAGs, seven ways to Sunday, I'd say. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:AGE MATTERS doesn't say sources published before 2000 aren't reliable, not even close. If I recall correctly (I haven't the patience to go and check), where page restrictions are authorised, and they're used to restrict the sources that can be used, the common practice to enforce a guideline with existing consensus (e.g. WP:MEDRS or WP:SCIRS) more strictly, not invent one out of whole cloth. I think this restriction would be more defensible if it did that. Unfortunately there's no WP:POLRS, but how about disallowing primary sources per WP:PSTS? From my reading above that seems to be just as much at issue as the age of the source, and has a better grounding in policy. – Joe (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

    The most important part of the source restriction is academic v. nonacademic. This is the same restriction that is in place in Holocaust in Poland, and is the part of WP:MEDRS (which I guess is a community consensus-based restriction, not a GS or DS restriction?). It's hugely helpful in those two areas, and it will be hugely helpful for Syrian Kurdistan (it should be applied to all geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East, IMO).

    The age thing is very important specifically for Syrian Kurdistan. And that's because it is a 20th century concept, and there has been a civil war since 2011, and Kurdish forces have (more or less) been controlling Syrian Kurdistan since 2012. On the article talk page are quotes from sources about how any discussion of "Syrian Kurdistan" before 1920 could be "misleading" (academic's words), how "the war changed everything" (another academic's words), and how things have developed rapidly over just the past nine years (multiple academics state this explicitly). We even see scholars themselves changing their scholarship year-to-year as they learn more information. On the talk page now, for example, is a source cited where the 2005 edition says Turkish immigration happened mostly in the 20th century, and the 2008 edition changes that to mostly 1920-1939. (This turns out to be an important difference.)

    Academic publishers are publishing multiple books per year on the subject; often the same group of scholars are publishing or editing every single year, (just about Syrian Kurdistan, nevermind Kurdistan in general). These are listed on the article talk page. Another major book (the new edition of McDowall 2004, which was the leading work until the war in 2011) is expected in April. "Syrian Kurdistan" is barely discussed in academic works (although it's there, it's just few and far between) before 2011, because (per academic sources post-2011), Syrian Kurds were an oppressed minority until 2011. So it's hugely important that our readers are told about current scholarship, not scholarship from even 10+ years ago. And "current" means 2020, 2019, 2018. Very current.

    So editors have included 19th century sources; 1901 Chambers encyclopedia; all to argue that Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist" (well, duh, there was no Syria in 1901, it was the Ottoman Empire then). And a 1946 CIA report that says Kurds had equal rights, well... not when all the books written in the past 10-20 years say otherwise.

    A source restriction that says recent scholarship is preferred over older scholarship or non-scholarship is a necessity for editing this topic area. Otherwise I have to spend my time talking about why we go with an Oxford book from last year over a 1946 CIA report. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your not accurately describing the situation, right now Valereee is not allowing a good source in the article, that is undisputed by scholar sources, because you dispute it based on her new restriction: [68], not because any scholar sources dispute it. Also, 1901 Chambers encyclopedia was not in the article to argue that Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist", but because to show a historical view of "Western Kurdistan" and it was attributed to the source. It was very important historical information that belonged in the article that you removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

These two issues are more examples of using old sources in pursuit of POV pushing. So the 1901 Chambers encyclopedia is used to argue that "Western Kurdistan" is something other than "Syrian Kurdistan". Well in 1901, "Syria" (the modern state) didn't exist, it was "Ottoman Empire". So it doesn't matter what "Western Kurdistan" was in 1901; it matters what those words mean today. All the modern academic sources say "Western Kurdistan" refers to Syrian Kurdistan. We are not going to include a 1901 encyclopedia to say that Western Kurdistan is somewhere else. That's ridiculous, and no editor should have to waste their time discussing such ridiculousness. Despite this, I've wasted a lot of time arguing this in the "Syrian Kurdistan" and "History" sections of Talk:Syrian Kurdistan.

The other sources you're referring to are 1950s French population surveys used in an attempt to say that there is no such thing as Syrian Kurdistan or Syrian Kurds because Kurds in Syria are actually Turkish. Copying population tables from a 1950s survey is using a primary source, it's UNDUE, and there is a plethora of modern academic scholarship that talks about the very complicated issue of Turkish Kurd migration to Syria (and whether that migration happened during the French mandate 1920-1946 or after the modern Syrian state was established). This is exactly the kind of issue where we have to look at modern scholarship and not population tables from the 1950s. Again, not something I should have to waste my time arguing. It's absolutely stupid to be preferring 1950s scholarship to 2020s scholarship. WTF, I say, again.

All of which is not as bad as the 1946 CIA report saying Kurds had equal rights. That's a double WTF. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely matters what the view in 1901 was because it shows that Western Kurdistan was in a place in today's Turkey and today it is regarded as a place in Syria, so the reach of the "Western/Syrian Kurdistan" entity has expanded over the years, the same in the USA article there is info about the country expanding from the east and then taking over new areas like Texas and California in the west. This background info is important for the reader. But because of this new restriction Valereee has added its almost impossible to restore this valuable information into the article, because you will "dispute it" and the conversation is shutdown, the exact same thing that happened with the french census numbers.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

SD, it's only impossible to include the information if both: 1. the information is disputed and 2. no scholar within the past twenty years covers it. If no scholar within the past twenty years is even covering the information, and if other editors are disputing that information, why is it actually valuable in a WP article? —valereee (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, Levivich disputes information based on your editing restriction about old sources, he isn't disputing it based on that the info is incorrect. And you allowed this:[69]. So he and others basically have veto power and can lock things out of the article by doing this. Despite the fact that no modern scholar sources disputed the sources or content. There could be several reasons for why an old source has information and a new source does not. As long as a new source isn't disputing the information of the old source, then that old source and its content should not be banned from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

SD, you have the exact same veto power as any other editor. You can require other editors support with recent scholarship any assertion you dispute. —valereee (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any restriction to use an old source as long as its reliable and no new source disputes its content. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's sad that the situation has come to needing this sort of thing, but it has, and I see this restriction as cromulent. (Also editors who are arguing that a 74-year-old primary source should override current-year academic secondary sources should really step back and ask themselves if they should take a wikibreak.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• These sanctions are authorized. WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS provides: "The sanctions imposed may include (...) any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." This includes measures restricting the kind of sources to be used. Because this is not an appeal against these sanctions, I'm not expressing a view about their merits. Sandstein 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The part you are citing is about "sanctions on any editor". I had a look there before leaving my first comment in this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  As above, nobody should look to WP:GS/SCW, or any of the unmaintained GS subpages for that matter, for the rules of the sanctions regime. The wording was unilaterally added (likely) intended as a summary. It is not the wording from the community discussion authorising the sanctions, and it has no consensus. One editor's copyediting omission does not create policy. WP:AC/DS applies, and imo denying so is wikilawyering and not helpful to the matter at hand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  However, WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS is linked from the editnotices. The editnotices are often the only source of information for the users. If the linked text of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS does not reflect consensus, which very well can be the case (I have not checked), the whole system is broken, and the usage must be immediately stopped. Whether the consensus was that page-wide restrictions beyond 1RR can be used is a different discussion, but if this is the case it must be reflected in WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS before we can continue using it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The GS system has never been maintained. Before me, the last editor to take any interest in it was RGloucester in 2015 (!), who added the summary text to various more subpages, in an effort to avoid confusion. Which, in hindsight, seems to have been a mistake because it's now out of sync, not just with AC/DS but with other GS subpages too, yet people are using the summary as if it were consensus. As for templates, the talk notices link to WP:AC/DS. You will find lots of similar inconsistencies throughout GS. Nobody cares enough to clean it up. I proposed deletion here last year to prevent such confusions but nobody really weighed in. The page is equivalent to an information page, it doesn't really matter what it says.

  If you want the run-down, see the page when the closer created it, which says clearly: The remedies for WP:ARBPIA apply, which at the time (and now) were/are standard AC/DS sanctions. The very first community DS regime (as far as I can see) was here where the proposal literally links to WP:AC/DS and the close defined "Community Authorized Discretionary Sanctions". It's not helpful for us to spend text debating that WP:AC/DS does not apply, or that the summary is the regime, when neither are true. This kludge is probably evidence that we need to start simplifying, not trying to overcomplicate this. GS as a whole is a textbook example of why we should follow DRY. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, I disagree. In at least one case (not the one we are discussing) I was actually the editor who summarized the RfC and established DS in a certain area, and I followed RfC, not assuming that what it meant to install was identical to standard AC/DS sanctions. Moreover, it can not be identical, because, as correctly noticed above by Joe Roe, for standard AC/DS sanctions we have AE and ARCA, in addition to AN; for community-established DS we only have AN, which works very differently from these two boards. Again, this probably should be properly discussed, may be we need an RfC, but it is clear that the system of community-established DS clearly currently has some serious flaws at the technical level. And when I mention editnotices and that they link to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS (and not to AC/DS, quite correctly), it means that WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS has to contain correct up-to-date information. If it doesn't, it means DS can not be applied in any valid way. This would be similar to, I do not know, users randomly modifying the text of ARBPIA because they think it better expresses what the ArbCom wanted to impose. And I regard the question on whether the page-wide source restriction may be imposed under DS as valid. We are a policy-based mechanism, and if something is not in the policy, or at least not in the written policy, it is not policy-based, whatever reasonable it might be.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, some common sense hoops are necessary to make sense of it. The full close of the discussion (I wanted to avoid quoting it, because this section is already long enough) is: There is a consensus for imposing community sanctions on all pages related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed. The sanctions themselves will be precisely the same as they are for WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based. Although no one addressed the duration, I will make them indefinite like the ARBPIA sanctions. That can, of course, be changed by community consensus. Finally, Arbcom sanctions cannot normally be undone by another administrator but have to be appealed to Arbcom. In a parallel fashion, the sanctions here can also not be done by another administrator unless appealed to WP:AN. Which covers your for standard AC/DS sanctions we have AE and ARCA, in addition to AN concern.

  This would be similar to, I do not know, users randomly modifying the text of ARBPIA because they think it better expresses what the ArbCom wanted to impose. Editors do exactly that (in good faith, of course). Nobody has cared enough about the subpages enough to revert changes to what you think is the 'official text'. If you look at the GS subpages, you'll find many such edits of the text just last year. The policy is simple: WP:AC/DS applies, with different appeal venues, and different templates + GS not permitting deletion, whereas DS does. This principle is not confusing at all, and it's far simpler to understand than thinking we have a dozen different community sanction regimes + 1 ArbCom one (which is pointlessly confusing imo). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The principle may not be confusing, I just do not believe it has a basis in any policy. Thanks for citing the closing statement, it indeed says the sanctions are similar to ARBPIA (which, I believe, exvludes the source restrictions, but I would need to re-read ARBPIA before stating this clearly). The sanctions I have instituted were not similar to ARBPIA, in particular, there was no provision that any article can be pre-emptively extended-confirmed protected (an ARBPIA provision). If we ever had an RfC saying that community imposed DS are in all respects similar to AC/DS I would like to see this RfC (ideally codified as a policy). Absent this, I believe the statement to be incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, you are right, the page I linked to covers only editor-specific sanctions after a warning. Accordingly, the sanctions at issue here are null and void. What's more, as noted above, we have no documentation that the wording on that page was adopted by consensus by the community. I share the concerns above about the practicability of this kludgy sanctions edifice. Sandstein 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I could've edited the page one week ago to fix this 'omission' (as others do on other GS subpages), nobody would've reverted it, and so the sanctions would be 'upheld'? That would be absurd. Reaching such a conclusion dismisses any consideration of principles here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am afraid if we want to continue with DS all DS pages must be cleaned up and protected at the admin level.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Even WP:AC/DS isn't protected, and this wouldn't fix the issue. The solution is simply to delete the separate log pages and have one central WP:AELOG-esque log, so we don't have 12 separate unmonitored summaries. I suspect you won't find enough editors with interest to look into it and vote in an RfC though, and there is also likely no consensus for revoking these sanctions. In the inevitable outcome of nothing being done in this section, we still need to have some idea of what the norm is for these sanctions, and that thing is WP:AC/DS not only because the community consensus authorising the sanctions was clear of that, but because it's the only option that actually makes sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with WP:GS as opposed to WP:ACDS (as seen in topics listed at T:DSA, and so on) is its haphazard and inconsistent nature. WP:GS/COVID19, for example, specifies wide-ranging sanctions available for page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. But I suppose that is an anomaly in the GS realm...? El_C 22:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

But I suppose that is an anomaly in the GS realm...? all the newer pages have it, eg WP:GS/MJ. When I asked QEDK who created MJ, the base for COVID19, they said their intent was intentional so that the structure remains similar to WP:AC/DS ... also keeping GS more in line with acceptable practices. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's news to me. Mind you, the fact that there is a Michael Jackson GS is also news to me. But I note that the relatively recent WP:GS/IRANPOL, for example, does not have that addition. Again, haphazard and inconsistent. El_C 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. It's ended up a total mess. I suspect Vanamonde93 just copied a different subpage, one that happened to be outdated, as their base. The next person to authorise a GS will also randomly pick one of the subpages to copy, which could be COVID or it could be IRANPOL. I just don't think it's accurate to think that the community authorising the sanctions actually expected to authorise a sanctions regime different to another, or the big one everyone is used to. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and El C: I personally thinking mirroring AC/DS is better than coming up with customizable solutions - albeit plausible, as most GS-es do have addendums, the idea is basically what I said above (also I cannot find where I said that, I'm pretty sure that you're right about me saying it, but I seem to have forgotten). I think the sanctions with that statement are merely codifying what is already the practice, except for the ones that are modeled on a specific ArbCom case like ARBPIA or ARBIPA, most of them are directly based off the over-reaching mandate of AC/DS. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There's the letter of the law and there's the spirit. I dipped a toe into the Syrian Kurdistan area a couple of months ago after an editor came to my talk page asking me to block an editor they disagreed with and I didn't last a day trying to parse the dispute going on across article talk pages. I commend Valereee for working in this troubled area of the project and I remember her request on this very noticeboard (see above) mid-December asking for some help from additional admins. And she is correct, if you try to understand the landscape of this subject well enough to recognize who is acting responsibly and who is pushing a POV, that doesn't make you involved (especially as she admits she holds no interest in the subject). Multiple editors working in this area have received indefinite and partial blocks in the past month so clearly admin help is required. I understand Valereee's solution may not be backed by policy but it's better than the anarchy that existed there earlier where there was edit warring going on. But what I think Valereee really could use is a second or third set of admin help in the trenches. Familiarity with ethnic geopolitics, preferred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz, the reason why the topic area was troubled was because of disruptive behavior from Konli17 who is now a blocked sock and GPinkerton who is now banned (only temporarily) from the topic area. As soon as these two problematic accounts was removed from the topic area, it was calm. This editing restriction on older sources was not needed and has only led to valuable historical information being removed from the article, and now its impossible to restore it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear! My most recent thoughts about this topic area, added to a section further up in this very noticeboard (originally authored by Valeree on Dec 17) may also be of interest: diff. El_C 23:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I rarely wade into the sanctions arena, so I can't say anything intelligent about whether this particular action was authorized. I do, however, want to respond to a few random points raised in the discussion above.

First, I'm uncomfortable with an admin passing judgement on a source (or class of sources). When wearing my admin hat, I try really really hard to stay out of content disputes, and whether a source is reliable or not is clearly a content dispute. If there's a question about a source which can't be resolved on the talk page, WP:RSN is the next step. I could see a sanction that says something like, "If the reliability of a source remains unclear after a talk page discussion lasting X days and involving Y editors, it should be posted to RSN".

Next, I don't think the example given, Template:Editnotices/Page/Coronavirus disease 2019, is relevant. I would say that preprints are NEVER WP:RS. For those who don't have experience with scientific research, when you write a paper and submit it to a peer-review journal, you sometimes share preprints with your colleagues. A preprint is just a draft of the paper before it's been accepted. It's had no review. It may end up getting accepted, getting accepted with revisions, or rejected outright. It's basically a self-published source, i.e. WP:UGC. It should go without saying that preprints are not acceptable sources in any article.

Lastly, admins absolutely should be exercising discretion. It's relatively easy to figure out if a rule has been broken. The hard part is deciding what to do about it. That's why admins get paid the big salaries.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, that is exactly what admins are tasked in weighing when it comes to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations (contrast that with the much more vague Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Neutrality_and_sources, for example). Now, whether that provision can be seen to have opened the floodgates is, perhaps, a question worth pursuing. El_C 23:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith passing judgement on a source (or class of sources) IMO is about policy. I'm not sure how you can argue that commenting on whether scholarly work is more reliable than a 1946 CIA report is a "content dispute". That's an astonishing thing to say, IMO. I don't care what article we're talking about. Our policy says scholarly sources are the gold standard and primary sources are generally to be avoided. How in the world is stating that at an article talk a content dispute? Surely I must be misunderstanding you. —valereee (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, Well, like I said, I don't get involved with sanctions much, so consider what I said more a general commentary on how the universe should be, rather than your specific action. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Page-level sanctions were authorised for this topic area per the second sentence of Bbb23's closure of the discussion which imposed them at AN. The first line of the close is "The sanctions themselves will be precisely the same as they are for WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, beyond the question of whether page-level restrictions are authorized for this or that GS (or should be for all of them or none of them or some of them, whatever), I am getting the impression that many here wish to distinguish between sanctions that include, say, a GS-invoked protection from one which imposes a sourcing requirement, it being a fairly recent thing on the project (I think). El_C 04:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't read everything, but agree most with Liz and ProcrastinatingReader. I support innovative attempts to solve disruptive editing especially in areas where the community has encouraged administrators to be proactive (i.e., GS topic areas). This is certainly not the usual page restriction, but it's not unheard of, and the GS regime is so badly maintained that hermeneutics of random pages and revisions is unlikely to give us a firm answer on whether this has consensus. IMO, it's better to ignore the specific GS text and just help valereee workshop a restriction that works.
  I think the main problem people are having with the specific restriction is the date cut-off. While reliable vs unreliable and secondary vs primary are largely policy questions, questions like when a source is too old is largely an editorial decision that admins should be wary of. Not sure why the particular year was chosen, but I trust valereee knows enough from working in the area to know where to place the line to limit disruptive editors without "thumbing the scales". I do appreciate the concern that this is a unilateral admin action verging on an editorial decision, so while I don't necessarily share the same degree of concern as (for example) Joe, I do agree that a better restriction is possible. That said, I don't think we should just remove the current restriction without giving valereee something to work with since she's been working really hard to administer that area with little help. I think RoySmith's proposed restriction of If the reliability of a source remains unclear after a talk page discussion lasting X days and involving Y editors, it should be posted to RSN is on the right track to a compromise. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, I chose that timeframe for no other reason than that the books that had been mentioned and pinned in the first post and agreed on by editors working there as reliable were in that time frame. I am so totally open to figuring this out from a community perspective. Do we need an RfC on what sources can be used for this article? Great! I'm there! I just am very concerned about the editors trying to work this article having to explain over and over and over and over and over again that, no, a 1946 CIA report cannot be considered an RS for interpreting what is "historically impossible." It's just not fair to require that level of patience. We need something, and this was what I came up with, and I'm totally open to whatever else works. I just want something that works. —valereee (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Valereee, That's why I suggested WP:RSN. RSN is staffed by folks who have invested more time than most people on understanding our RS policies, and the decisions that come out of there are well respected as authoritative and neutral. Pointing to a RSN rating of "blacklisted", "generally acceptable", or somewhere in between is usually (but not always) all it takes to bring closure. If that one particular source keeps coming up, and assuming the RSN folks give it a thumbs-down, create WP:CIA46 as a redirect to that discussion and link to that in the edit comment in which you remove the source for the Nth time. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @RoySmith, so the editors at SK go to RSN for a discussion every time someone brings in whether a contemporary news source trumps recent scholarly work, or whether a decades-old primary source ditto? Because that kind of thing is happening there daily. RSN discussions can take weeks and never even get a close, especially if at least one participant is willing to put up walls of text. That isn't a reasonable expectation of editors at SK, IMO. —valereee (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  For a reality check, @RoySmith, take a look at the edits in this discussion by Supreme Deliciousness. The sources they're referring to are a 1946 CIA report and a 1901 encyclopedia. Take a look. —valereee (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, your not presenting the situation accurately: "whether a contemporary news source trumps recent scholarly work, or whether a decades-old primary source ditto"... that's not what you said before or what the restriction you added said, you yourself said that even if no scholarly source disputes an older source, the older source will not be allowed in the article if any editor disputes it for any reason: [70], and Levivich used your editing restriction, to lock content out of the article. Despite the fact that no source whatsoever disputed the older source he could do this with your restriction. So you gave him and others veto power to remove important non-disputed historical information from the article, and they did, and the information is now gone. And its impossible to restore it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• If it's just that one source and there's obvious consensus to exclude it, you can prohibit its inclusion, though I'm guessing it's not that easy. If the problem is having the same discussion over and over, I've seen El_C use discussion moratoria to allow closing redundant discussions. One I recall was at Talk:Kyiv and limited requested moves to one every six months or something. Maybe ask them about how those have worked out. You can also ask editors there to document consensus discussions like at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus. I don't think I've seen it used for enforcement, but you probably could limit edits or discussion of already decided matters based on that editor-curated (rather than admin curated) document. At the very least it helps editors quash perennial discussions by linking to that document. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, same thing I just said to RoySmith above: check the posts just in this discussion from Supreme Deliciousness. That's what editors at SK are dealing with, with literally dozens of lower quality sources being brought forward. It's why I thought, "Maybe we just only consider highest-quality sources?" —valereee (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Honestly, if that's a representative example, I don't think page restrictions will work out the way you expect (PR gets at it below but I haven't read teh whole thing yet). It seems like the problem is too much discussion, but as you're noticing we're not really equipped to handle that kind of thing. I think the better strategy is to meatball:DissuadeInteraction: Bring the other party to the direct personal conclusion that the relationship is not worth her time, rather than hoping they will make the indirect conclusion that because it is not worth your time is not worth her time. Provide a path for them to follow towards this conclusion. Instead of setting up page restrictions that directly prohibit the problematic behavior, set up ones that allow but frustrate the problematic behavior until the editor decides it's not worth their time.

  So in this case, I would imagine some kind of consensus required/enforced BRD restriction with a flow that goes something like this: a blundering editor wants to add/remove a source that has been discussed ad nauseum or is clearly improper. The blundering editor follows the restriction and makes the bold edit, and it obviously gets reverted. If blundering editor does nothing in response to the revert, problem solved. If blundering editor reverts the revert, block or warn as appropriate (then repeat until problem solved). Here's the key: if blundering editor starts a talk page discussion as the restrictions require, then everyone should just ignore them. After a couple days of the cold shoulder you can close as no consensus. If blundering editor still tries to add it again or keeps restarting the same discussion over and over, block or warn for disruptive editing, problem solved. After a few rounds of this they'll either wind up blocked or get the hint, either way the disruption is stopped without having endless, useless discussions. Of course, this requires buy-in from article regulars, but it shouldn't be too hard of a sell. Either way, I think any solution will need buy in from the regulars to build some social controls. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, there aren't enough editors at the article to make that work. No one wants to work there. There's no "everyone" to ignore them. There's just a lone voice in the wilderness, plus one admin trying to help. —valereee (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Initial ideas:

  • If the talk page is functioning enough such that it can get consensus on issues, you can use a modified 'consensus required provision' with a moratorium on future discussions if attempts to get consensus fail. However, if the talk page is not functioning then this can be abused to just block any change.
  • You can also consider a restriction along the lines of Template:Editnotices/Page/Ripple (payment protocol) (bullet #3), a blanket restriction on primary sourcing without getting affirmative consensus. But this is more limited than the current restriction, since it won't cover most dodgy sources I imagine.

  Both are not as good as the current restriction. If I understand correctly, I think the main concern of some above with the current restriction is that it blocks the use of certain sources, and it also blocks discussions on those sources / attempts to gain consensus. So maybe:

  • A modified "For disputed (via reversion) sources older than 20 years, editors must gain an affirmative consensus on talk before reinstating the source" (rough wording). Obvious downside: it will encourage spamming the talk page. Though, I guess the answer to unreasonableness to the point of disruption is topic bans.

  ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Though, since the issue here seems to mainly be talk page disruption, and not article disruption, I'm not sure any idea that doesn't also block discussion actually solves the problem. Moratoriums are one way - allow a discussion once, and then block it for a while. But for dozens of sources, that doesn't really work. RfC seems to be the cleanest route? But I still think leaving the current restriction in place is the best outcome, as I cannot think of any better restriction or general solution, and removal is not a good outcome for the talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do not have the stomach for reading all of the diffs here, but I wanted to note a few things. First, ProcrastinatingReader's point about discrepancies is noted, but per IAR and NOTBURO, we should be enforcing the spirit of GS, not the letter of a specific closure statement. As such, I think a page-level restriction is perefectly fine.
  Second, in a contentious area, there is not a clear delineation between content and conduct, and we cannot base dispute resolution on the idea that anything to do with source reliability is a content matter and outside admin purview. Joe, I'm quite surprised to see that's what you're saying. A sourcing restriction eliminating a priori unreliable sources is entirely reasonable.
  Third, I'm not entirely certain a 2000 boundary is the best way to achieve this, but a 1946 CIA report is already verboten for contentious material in Wikipedia's voice per WP:PRIMARY, and so I'm not certain why we're debating that.
  Fourth, we cannot reasonably craft a restriction requiring editors to go to RSN; RSN does not have the capacity to deal with a flood of posts from contentious areas. Mandating affirmative consensus on the talk is better, but still messy.
  Fifth and last, I think Valereee deserves thanks for even attempting to handle this hot potato. We have far too few admins handling our contentious areas, particularly topics outside the anglosphere; please, let's try not to reduce that number further, even if we end up deciding Valereee has over-reached. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Huh. [71] The GS wording is older than I thought it would be. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Talk:Syrian Kurdistan#Why recent academic sources may be of interest. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I sincerely hope some other people are reading the link Levivich posted above. I have zero issue with the community deciding this restriction isn't the right one, tweaking it, deciding it should be removed altogether. I took a risk, and I'll deal with the fallout. But someone needs to go help at that article. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just FTR, I did actually open a section at WT:GS and ask before I did this, it wasn't totally just my own wild hare. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Film

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

---

I have recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Paraguayan cinema task force and I need to modify the Template:WikiProject Film to include what kind of category the articles related to films from Paraguay belong to. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas, I think your question is more suited to be asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film rather than on WP:AN which is for administrative matters since it concerns content issues, not editor misconduct or systemic issues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Stale unblock request by user:Megacheez

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

---

• Megacheez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Anyone want to look at this unblock request? It's the fifth unblock request on a July 2020 block by user: Black Kite following ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#User_Megacheez. The current unblock request has been open for five weeks, and the user is still active. Meters (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No need to consult me if anyone feels like an unblock - WP:ROPE and such like. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unblocked, with a warning that another indef is likely to be perceived by many admins as intended to be permanent. —valereee (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Paid contributions on fawiki

Afsane1369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. This user was editing and creating articles on fawiki (Persian) in violation of disclosure of paid-contribution policy. All the evidence we have, including user profile on a Iranian outsourcing website named "Parscoders", are in Persian language, but i can mention them here if needed. The user is now blocked on our wiki by User:Telluride. Her contributions in Qarz Al-Hasaneh Mehr Iran Bank are undoubtedly paid and in violation of NPOV and needs to be reverted. please decide what has to be done about this user on enwiki. thanks. --Jeeputer (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian

Moved from Special:PermaLink/998264388#Nicholas_Alahverdian (ANI)

There are allegations flying back and forth about sock-puppetry, G4 violations, etc. I am getting e-mails from new accounts alleging off-wiki threats, blackmail and/or coercion, violations of BLP rules, etc.

Could I have some non-involved admins take a look at this article and its history with fresh eyes? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

All you need to read is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr42 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fred newman/Archive. And this should probably be at WP:AN. This is long-time socking, I don't really know what there is to discuss here. The OS team are also aware of the situation, and it was an article under heavy scrutiny from multiple admins and functionaries. It should be restored, I don't know why it's still deleted. I imagine the emails you're getting are because you deleted the article, and the socks don't want you to undelete it. It's a very persistent sock, so perhaps you'll have to disable email for a while? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

for context, this is: User_talk:Orangemike#Nicholas_Alahverdian, though I'm not sure why I got the ANI message for this ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have undeleted the article, as it was not a valid G4 deletion. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version", and it was very different to the version deleted via the quoted AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Boing. Could you undelete the talk too? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I missed that - looks like someone else got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• For ease of anyone else here wondering about the history: The 3rd nom contains links to the 2nd 'Keep' result in 2019, which is at least 2 years after the 2017 discussion quoted by Orangemike in his deletion log rationale for (as Boing! points out) a substantially different article. Really admins, if you are going to action requests by obvious sockpuppets, please take the 30 seconds to check the other AFD's that are more recently relevant, as well as that the reason used is correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• And I see Primefac has cleaned up the history by getting rid of previously deleted versions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  What can I say, I'm a stickler for historical accuracy. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Hehe, good work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• If anyone has received emails from any socks that are not yet blocked, or has seen any other WP:SPAs who are not yet blocked, please bring them to my attention so that I can investigate. I've also shared some information with checkusers from other wikis, as the socks have also recently been active at least on simplewiki. ST47 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This is such a curious case over the years, with some sockpuppets puffing up the article with insignificant praise & detail and other sockpuppet camps trying to get the article deleted. Plus the Wikipediocracy investigative articles that they decide to yank off their website for potentially legal issues. All about an individual who is presumed deceased for nearly a year. I wish some reliable media outfit would look into this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Reconsideration of TBAN

In 2019 I was topic banned from edits relating to the Knights of Columbus. I appealed six months later following the WP:SO. Reading some of the comments in that discussion made me realize that I still had some work to do and so I withdrew the appeal. In the months since, I have taken steps to address those concerns and think I am a better editor for it. With more than a year having passed, I now ask for the TBAN be reconsidered again.

As noted the first time around, I slipped up twice. The first was just an outright violation of the ban. I edited an article to add a wikilink and a minor detail to a low-interest biography of a Knight. It was totally my mistake and a few hours later I remembered and self-reverted. The other time was due to a misunderstanding of what my ban entailed. After it was pointed it out to me, I reread the sanction more closely, apologized, and have haven't done it since.

After the first appeal, I adopted a set of principles to help me in future disputes. Notably, they include a 1RR when editing contentious material, and greater use of WP:DR if a couple messages on the talk page are not enough to solve a dispute. There have even been occasions when I thought an edit was not controversial and got up to 2RR. When another editor objected and pointed to my userpage, I self-reverted.

As the ban was put into place partly due to my liberal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF sources, perhaps the most important principle I have adopted is immediately turning to WP:RSN whenever a source I am using is questioned (plus, it should be said, a more judicious use of sources in the first place). At the end of that statement I invite others to help me refine them and to call me out when I fall short. That stands, and the invitation is specifically extended to all those here.

I have frequently turned to noticeboards and respected editors' talk pages whenever a question has arisen. This includes times when I was pretty sure what the answer was, but wanted to be crystal clear and have uninvolved editors weigh in. I even had someone thank me on my talk page "for all the good work that [I] do and [my] perennially constructive approach to editing and discussion." It would appear from this that my efforts have been largely successful.

In addition to the steps outlined above, I have also made efforts to remove myself from conflicts. I've taken a few wikibreaks to emotionally untangle myself from the project, and it has worked. I don't check it nearly as often and my edit counts are down by about 50%. My recent contributions have mostly been in quiet corners of the encyclopedia and creating new biographical articles on individuals from underrepresented groups. Plus, these days I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in disputes, even if it means an edit I disagree with stands. Real life responsibilities have piled up in the last year and I don't see them abating anytime soon. I don't expect to be involved in disputes on Knights' related articles or anywhere else for the foreseeable future.

There are, occasionally, details or content that I would like to add. See, for example, the detail and wikilink mentioned above that no one else has restored. I would appreciate having the ban lifted so that when occasions like that arise I am able to add them. I would also like to propose, if others think it is needed, that this appeal be reconsidered in six months time. If by June everything remains copacetic, we can move forward. If not, the TBAN can be reimposed. Of course, it could always be reimposed sooner than that or after, but this sets up a formal mechanism for review.

Thank you all for your consideration. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unban I think a quote from the original ban request is appropriate “There seems to be significant WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE / WP:UNDUE issues in these articles that have been introduced by the editor, there is no attempt at WP:IMPARTIAL” The main issue with Slugger’s editing was using poor quality and self-published sources to build up promotional content on organizations he had a COI with. I think edits from yesterday show that Slugger still has the same issues with organization he has connections with, in this case Catholic University of America. Looking at the sources two are self-published diocese sources, two are basically just pictures used for OR purposes, one is to the designers personal and promotional website, and one is to CUA itself. The only “secondary source” is the school paper. This is promotion content of no know notability that amounts to a line in the parent article, maybe.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There are now five articles about university seals, including CUA's. At Yale University coat of arms, one of two sources is from the alumni magazine. At Coat of arms of the University of Chicago, all five come from the University. At Coat of arms of the University of Notre Dame, six of twelve are ND sources. And at Heraldry of Harvard University, all four references are from Harvard and 11 of 12 citations in the "Sources" section are from Harvard. It seemed to me that this was adequate sourcing. If I am mistaken, it wouldn't be the first time. Additionally, an independent editor with more than 125,000 lifetime edits has reviewed the article and did not tag it with any concerns, sourcing, notability, or otherwise. However, since you have questioned it, I will now bring the article to the attention of the RSN and see what they have to say. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If you care to weigh in, here is the RSN query. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The RSN is just more churn showing your inablity to edit in areas you are conflicted. You built an entire section, including the sentence "The Catholic University of America is the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States and its shield emphasizes those three elements", based on the schools branding [72] documentation. The pages are the directions on how to properly promote the CUA brand and you put the content in wikipedias voice. You shouldn't need RSN to know that wikepedia articles shouldn't be built off self admitted branding directions.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. The article about the CUA seal is a perfect illustration of the consistently problematic aspects of Slugger O'Toole's editing. This editor knows quite well that notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, and yet he creates an article using sources affiliated with the university and the designer of the shield. The excuse? Some other articles about college shields are also poorly sourced so therefore it is OK to create a new article that is very poorly sourced. The topic ban should stay, and if this poor quality editing continues, the ban should be expanded to Roman Catholicism, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Cullen328, I have created over 60 articles since my TBAN. This is the first time anyone has raised an objection about the sources I used in one. Perhaps I erred here, but I was basing my edits on precedent.

  In other cases, on the few occasions someone objected to one of my sources, I have brought it to RSN every time. I even did so when others were edit warring over it, and when I used a source someone else suggested on talk.

  I am not claiming to be perfect but, respectfully, I think "consistently problematic" may be overstating matters. I would ask you to look at the totality of my work since my last appeal, not just the last 24 hours. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Just the fact that you think the existence of a handful of other poorly referenced articles creates some sort of "precedent" to create another poorly referenced article is problematic in my view. You should not need to go to RSN to figure out whether a source is independent, since the lack of independence of these sources is glaringly obvious. I am not going to read 60 articles when the problems with your recent editing are clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, would you please back up your claim that I was edit warring with ElkevBo, or they with me. From memory, I removed, they reverted, so I added context. That is not edit warring.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alternative Slugger should(UTC) remain banned from editing pages concerning the Knights of Columbus directly but perhaps allow them back on the Talk Pages of the articles. Limited initially to ONLY making Edit Requests and if that proves fruitful allow them fuller engagement on Talk Pages beyond Edit Requests or Remove the TBAN entirely. Slywriter (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Slywriter, That would not be my first choice, but I think that could work. Thank you. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:PERM backlog

Hi admins, there is a backlog for file mover and page mover permission. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:113B:3DC7:CF3F:BD3C:E9F3:2240 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely hate it when something on my list of things to get done today ends up getting "flagged" at AN for not yet being done. Anywho, PGM is clear. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Primefac, this leaves a backlog only at file mover requests. 2402:3A80:113B:3DC7:CF3F:BD3C:E9F3:2240 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Username policy and blocking

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

---

I need a sanity check here. According to WP:U, does a username like Wesley Stinky (talk · contribs) seriously rise to the level of disruptive or offensive in and of itself? I really don't think it's even close, and preemptive blocking is an overreach. Thoughts? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless "Wesley Stinky" is the name of a corporation or something (and according to Google it doesn't appear to be), I agree this appears to be extreme. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not so offensive to justify blocking before any edits; I generally only would report a username before it made edits if the name attacked a BLP (often a Wikipedia admin). Yesterday I saw Poopface888 and waited for a (vandalous) edit before reporting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Poopface888" (as well as this username) wouldn't be enough to block the account outright, until the user has started making disruptive edits such as vandalism. In combination with the username and vandalism, I'd jump straight to a block, since it's clear that the user's intent is only to be disruptive. There's a difference between usernames that blatantly violate Wikipedia's username policy that should be blocked outright and regardless of whether they edit or not, and usernames that are childish, show a possible intent to troll, and aren't constructive. I don't block accounts simply because their username falls into this category. When I see users vandalizing Wikipedia that also have such a username, it helps me to determine the user's intent - and I go straight to blocking. It all depends on the situation, and the information that I have before me that helps me make the appropriate judgment call. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If “Wesley Stinky” is so juvenile as to be facially disruptive, you could make great arguments that Bongwarrior and GorillaWarfare are contrary to policy (albeit to a lesser degree). No offense intended of course. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Silly, funny, even moderately racy usernames are just fine by me, and neither of those usernames are remotely offensive. Playground insult/scatological usernames, on the other hand, are not only offensive, they are intended to be so by their creators. In my opinion, an encyclopedia populated by "stinky", "poo", "fart", "bum" and "wee-wee"-type usernames is not an environment that is conducive to civil behavior. You have to draw the line somewhere: I think "Poopface" is clearly on the far side of that line, and "Wesley Stinky", while not quite as egregious, is also clearly over it. Note that they have the option of requesting an unblock: they haven't chosen to take it up. -- The Anome (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but "they have the option of requesting an unblock: they haven't chosen to take it up" is very poor justification. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

neither of those usernames are remotely offensive Says you. And therein lies the problem: excessive discretion in deciding what usernames are disruptive. Someone else might find warfare and killing offensive owing to the loss of relatives in war (you might even argue that a reasonable person would find making light of warfare and killing to be offensive), or drug use owing to the death of family and friends in the drug trade (pardon to Bongwarrior if the "bong" isn't intended to mean bong). Unilateral, prior-to-editing username blocks should be made for non-discretionary reasons, such as including overt harassment towards particular persons, obvious slurs towards any group of people, and otherwise deceptive or disruptive usernames. Non-disruptive profanity, meme-related usernames, and sophomoric humor do not rise to the level of disrupting the project so badly that they must be immediately blocked. That doesn't mean you can't leave a user talk message suggesting they change it, nor does it mean you can't take the username into account when evaluating whether the editor is WP:NOTHERE. But "Wesley Stinky"? Come on man. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Anome - See the response I made above regarding how I handle these situations. I think the response also applies to your response here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is an overreach, particularly with an account with no edits nor filter hits at all. We do treat variations of "poop" as blatantly offensive usernames but extending that rationale to "stinky" seems like pearl clutching. It's hardly universally offensive, and can be a term of endearment ([73], [74], [75]). I would've at least waited for the user to edit, and if they were not obviously a VOA I might have suggested they consider choosing a new username. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand I would have blocked Poopface88 immediately, but not necessarily because of "poop". They have neo-Nazi symbolism (88) in their username. So I guess I agree it's a judgement call. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector - I would not block an account only because it has "88" at the end. Sure, the username also has "poop" in it, but "88" could just be random... Yes, I learned recently that this is a neo-Nazi symbol, but there are thousands of innocent reasons why someone would choose "88" as part of their username, and only one reason (that I know of) as to why it would be bad. I like 88 on a football jersey not because it's has a very horrific and racist meaning, but because the number 88 is the digit that takes up the most of the uniform (compared to say, 89, where a line is missing from what would be the '8'). Sure, if the username was "hailhiter88", I'd be blocking that without question - you had me at "hailhitler", but the number just on its own is not a reason. That would fall into "assume good faith territory". In fact, before I recently learned of how that number has a neo-Nazi meaning, I wouldn't even had thought "assume good faith". I wouldn't have given it a second thought... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The rumor mill once had Ford considering asking them to change the number because of that reason.

They could be a fan of Dale Earnhardt Jr. (or Dale Jarrett, etc.). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with The Anome that it's a judgment call and that it's hard to determine precisely where the line should be drawn, and I have no question that they blocked in good faith. But I do think drawing it such that accounts with the word "Stinky" in them are insta-blocked without any disruption is too far. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe someone thinks "stinky" is offensive. Is "smelly" offensive? And unless the username is promotional, group, impersonation or incorporates a racist, sexist, sexual or scatological word, I didn't think accounts were preemptively blocked until they made edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree in this case - I saw it on UAA last night and left it because it IMHO doesn't rise to the disruptive level. (Heck, for all we know "Stinky Wesley" is the user's nickname, and nicknames are explicitly allowed by policy). If I see a "poop" username, it's blatantly obvious they are WP:NOTHERE - and honestly, I'm pretty sure for a lot of the Poop Trolls just seeing their username in the revision history is their satisfaction, so preemptive blocking in those cases is probably a very good idea. But "stinky"? Stinky Pete would like to protest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that different administrators would have slightly varying standards for the types of account names that should be blocked on sight before editing. I would not block for "stinky" alone, but on the other hand, I disagree with Power~enwiki about "poopface" and "poopypants" usernames. The odds of productive editing from such an account are negligible, and I believe that they should be reported and blocked on sight. I would look at a "stinky" account with suspicion, and indef quickly for BLP vandalism, for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I've come to the realisation that most of those are "fire and forget" accounts for the sole purpose of going "ha ha! 'Poop' is in the revision history FOREVER!". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The odds of productive editing from such an account are negligible My response to that is "so what?" The point of AGF isn't just civility for a collegial environment, but a presumption of good faith unless and until that presumption is rebutted. Okay, someone just created an account with an infantile username. Without anything more, it's not something that 99% of users will ever see, nor is it something that actually harms the encyclopedia by dint of its existence. Even the fact that there's something in a page history (barely anybody looks at these) I don't see as sufficient to argue causes harm to anybody. Yes, remove Nazi and slur accounts. Yes, remove harassment and doppelgänger accounts. Those cause harm to the community at large on their own. But childish humor? What happened to WP:BITE?

Are we also going to start preemptively blocking 14-year-olds? Anonymous editing? "But IP," they'll surely say, "Anonymous editors make productive edits! Here are some statistics used in the perennial discussions about anonymous editors to support their continued contributions!" My response: Where are the statistics supporting the unstated, but necessary, claim that childish humor is an indicator of disruptive intent so severe as to justify an assumption of bad faith? 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree; we're all going to have different levels of judgment when it comes to this situation. In my experience, usernames that fall into the "poop", "butt", "zit", "pee", etc categories either vandalize and cause disruption, or they don't edit at all. The majority of them don't even make edits. There's a difference between usernames that fall into the "hard-block on sight and because of the username alone" category (such as libeleous, harassment, violent, threatening usernames, etc), the "soft-block because of the username" category (such as "mybigbutthole11", "fucktrump", "pussydestroyer66" (I'm sure we've all seen a username like that one... ugh...), and similar usernames), and the "that username tells me that this user is probably going to troll" category. I don't block accounts that fall into the last category. I always just wait until they edit, and once they start being a troll, I'll block on sight. The username in this situation is used in comination with their edits to determine that they're definitely WP:NOTHERE, and I'll block them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless this is a company or corporation (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), this is way too extreme. This username does not blatantly violate Wikipedia's username policy - not even close. This block should be lifted; I'm quite surprised that this is even a discussion. Unless somebody explicitly objects and with a good reason, I'm going to lift this block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to that and was half-debating doing it myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've unblocked the account. This is done with no hard feelings at all towards The Anome. The discussion so far has pretty much said in consensus that the account doesn't violate UPOL and that blocking the account based on the username alone in this situation went a bit too far. I don't want this to turn into a pitfall of a controversy and discussion about "The Anome blocking the account" and "Oshwah for unblocking it on The Anome". However, in the end, someone needs to step in and do the right thing, and I'm okay with being "that person". :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Swarm's closing statement is begging a conclusion, so this feels like a good place to confirm that yes, inappropriate or overzealous admin actions, especially blocks, are absolutely a matter worth discussing here (a battle worth picking, to use Swarm's analogy). Furthermore an admin not responding to an WP:ADMINACCT inquiry for 19-ish hours while they're clearly active (The Anome made 45 visible edits without replying to Bongwarrior's first follow-up before this thread was posted) is also fine grounds for escalation to AN (per the policy: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions."; emphasis added). Blocking an account with no edits and then retroactively justifying an inappropriate block because they have no edits is just a bewildering twist of logic. Remember that WP:BITE and WP:AGF are widely accepted guidelines. I realize everything that happened here was in good faith and the matter is all resolved but I dislike high-and-mighty closing statements that belittle participants' valid concerns, and this one deserves a dissenting response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. A mentor once advised me, in reading over a memorandum I drafted, that in too many places I was inserting my opinion where that wasn't my role. I was, as he put it, editorializing. I think closers should avoid editorialization.
    The consensus that the block was inappropriate was pretty clear here. There was also initiative to reverse the block. There was no consensus as to the "line" where a username requires a preemptive block, but one wasn't really sought at the outset. A discussion should be probably be held to determine: (1) what, if any, username situations require an immediate block, (2) the role and allowable degree of individual administrative discretion in determining whether a username situation requires an immediate block, and (3) how edge cases should be handled. This should be followed by an RfC to codify the conclusions in WP:UPOL. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request by Huggums537

Could an uninvolved admin look at User talk:Huggums537#New Request please? Nutshell version: an unblock request was placed back in August, and was being discussed by various admins with the last edit being made on 2 December. On 2 January I looked at this case, and as there had been no further discussion I closed it as {{decline stale}}. Huggums537 has questioned this outcome, and also raised an issue about the general closure method for stale requests (which could be a bigger can of worms, especially after Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#Template:Decline stale). Personally I'm neutral about unblocking this user, and will have no further involvement other than notifying them about this discussion. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tagged as a copyvio since March

Robert Riddles has been tagged as a copyvio since March last year. Is this a record? In October an IP removed the offending text and the notice, but was reverted by Redrose64. What needs to be done to sort the article out? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need the help of @Romfordian:. What is see is that the first version of the article looks like closed paraphrasing of the source [76] and is much shorter than the source. It was written in 2004 by the user who has not edited since 2006. In 2009, the article was somewhat expended by Romfordian. There were no further significant changes until 2019, when an IP marked it as copyright violation citing the above source. But the source is marked as 2018 (and still contains way more text than the article). I would say this is not copyright violation, but may by the text was written by one of the authors of our article who may know and clarify the sitiation.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor blanking this article did not list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and therefore it was not seen after seven days. That said, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is heavily backlogged and I am the only admin who reviews these listings on a daily basis. MER-C 12:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP concerned was going through articles removing cleanup tags without explanation. In most cases, the issue that the article had been tagged for had not been addressed in a manner that would justify removal of the tag. To my mind, they appeared to be simple drive-by removals (the opposite of WP:DRIVEBY). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:JayBeeEll

Again i am being insulted, first as a "whiny little bitch" which whent unpunished, now i am doing paranoid ranting.. it seems some have more right here then others!

His exact text: As has already been explained to you, this is not on topic. If you did more listening and less paranoid ranting, your tenure here would be smoother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congo_Free_State&action=history

KingBaudoin (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The user above is edit warring here and here to push a certain file into the article. When other users disagree, he calls it politically motivated censorship. I hope an admin can calm this down. (Sorry for reacting here on the wrong noticeboard, I suppose.) Encycloon (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sievert 81

I was advised not to post on here, but I don't know where else to post this besides creating a Meta RfC.

Sievert 81 (talk · contribs) is a user who has been indefinitely blocked on here due to disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and adding factual inaccuracies to medical articles. This user has also been subject to a site ban per WP:3X, in addition to community sanctions placed following WP:SIEVERT. I came here because it seems like the user is still trying to evade his indefinite block and global lock, using accounts such as:

75k cases (talk · contribs)

Sievert 81 Genghis Khan (talk · contribs)

Sievert 75k cases (talk · contribs)

There are also several suspected sockpuppets who have been globally locked due to inappropriate username.

I came here to ask for advice on how to deal with this situation, as I believe that the only ways to end this issue once and for all are to either institute an indefinite [global] block of his IP address with account creation disabled, or to start an RfC on Meta to propose a global ban, notwithstanding the fact that he does not meet the global ban criteria. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

All of those accounts have been blocked and/or locked since mid-December. There has been no activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sievert 81 since December 10th either. The user is already banned, and I'm assuming if there is an easy single IP address or clear range to hardblock, CheckUsers will have done so already. Is there recent activity from him that hasn't been dealt with? If so, reporting the new accounts to SPI is the solution. I'm honestly not sure why you're suggesting Meta needs to be involved unless he is doing cross-wiki disruption. ~ mazca ^talk 13:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what Mazca said above, if you want some advice, don't concentrate on any of these vandals. The more you talk to or about them, the more LTA impersonation trolls such as 'Sievert 81 Genghis Khan' will turn up, and probably pester you personally. Whoever gave you the advice to not post here was correct. Just RBI, and report to SPI occasionally to keep some track and get an update on whether checkusers can apply range blocks (which may be a possibility with this one). If checkusers can't apply a local range block, a global block is unlikely (and please read up on global block capabilities). Also as a general rule, the more you get global involved, the more global any disruption will be. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Appeal topic ban (of User:Loves Woolf1882)

Hello, I would please like to appeal my recent 6 months topic ban (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Loves_Woolf1882), since it is only a misuse of my record from 2 years ago, but not for something new I did. I was blocked 2 years ago but after my unblock I’ve been extremely careful. (Please review the edits I made ever since my unblock.) Nonetheless, someone is using my old record to wrongly report me now. A new topic ban, misusing what happened 2 years ago (a mistake I have paid for with a year & a half of waiting) is not fair. It is even very discouraging, to say the least. If I was a new user account, I would have even gotten Barnstar for all my careful & productive edits ever since my unblock.

It’s sad that someone can have me topic banned without me doing something new worthy of a ban. I was not even given a single warning from any administrator, since there was nothing worthy wrong I was doing. I would at least please like to have the topic ban time decreased from 6 months to 1 week.

I know User:Boud is an experienced veteran editor, and I even first got into unnecessary back and forth with him when I confused him with another editor (User:KZebegna, who called BBC & Reuters "inimical journalists"), as I clarified to Boud back then (diff); However, it hasn’t changed Boud’s views towards me ever since.

The comments that lead to my topic ban were made before I responded to them. So I have (shortened) and re-wrote my response on the subsection at the bottom.

Basically, I only tried to bring & give minority people's human right question/claims... equal space on Wikipedia, but I guess it looked as if I have some opposite view to other people. But that is because I brought the view of minorities in the midst of the majorities, on common issues to all. All my points were very WELL referenced by independent credible sources like BBC, the international Human Right Watch, NPR and so on (and only by such kind of credible media outlets and organizations).

My full RESPONSE to complaints against me.

* Hi Boud, about my past, I have already discussed this in details with the Administrators before. I don't think it is fair to bring things back after 2 years.

* Dear Administrators, many of User:Boud's points, I have before responded to on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag), so I please ask you read that first.(Or its diff.) With all due respect, User:Boud is misrepresenting my points here. My original NPOV complaint points can also be found above it on the same talk page (Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD-(or its first version diff))

* User:Boud is saying that adding in quotation "invaders" as exactly stated on the France 24 reference was wrong of me to do (https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20201205-ethiopia-we-are-in-our-homeland-the-invaders-are-attacking-us-says-tigray-s-gebremichael). However, I first explained on the Tigray conflict page LEAD that "invaders" was the term used by the TPLF(diff), and I put it in quotation at both the LEAD and the Info-box. I assume the Info-box should summarize the content of the page/LEAD. I have SEVERL responded to this before on Talk:Tigray conflict#POV in the infobox (or diff).

* User:Boud said "S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that 'TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows'". However what Boud said is not correct, this not my POV point (and this “reply” line I once said when he accused me of degrading TPLF, is completely being used out of context, as I'll explain here). My NPOV points are the once I listed the link to above (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag and WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD). I even said this reply line only once to him/her when Boud said I like degraded TPLF by calling them "some party". I clarified this for Boud before on December 26, 2020:- "I believe you first said, I like degraded them by calling TPLF "some party", so I was just trying to undo the degrading". This was the last line on this link discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic ). Boud, first accused me of degrading TPLF by calling them "some party", then when I reply a 2nd sentence to undo my alleged TPLF degrading 1st statement, Boud says my 2nd new sentence is pro-TPLF and he posts it all over the place, including here. Now he is even saying that my this one reply sentence is the justification for my NPOV complaint, however, this is not true, and I have written the two links to the real justification of the NPOV tag I placed.

* Some of my suggestion are even ani-TPLF. For example, in diff, I made the point that the Amnesty international report incriminated TPLF (not the Samri youth group). I asked things to be stated as on the Amnesty report (which said "forces loyal to the TPLF"), not Samri, and for the WP:SYNTH to be corrected. Implicating TPLF directly instead of Samri, thereby being anti-TPLF.

* Boud said "This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims...ethnic group called Welkait...". It is funny that Boud thanked me for correcting his this WP:SYNTH mistake on the talk page before, but now brings it here differently. Please admins read the flowing subsection about this point from the talk page, for fairness sake:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic (or diff)

* Boud said "S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline." Again User:Boud, with all due respect I have answered this on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag. You said videos are difficult to check and wanted them (or wanted once that are already) transcripted and archived before they can be used as a reference. I have understood what the the WP:PUBLISHED guideline says, and it does not exclude the use of videos that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party, like the once I used. They are broadcasted but not yet archived (and it's not a requirement to archive them first). I asked for others (or your) "help" on how to archive them (until I figure out how to do them myself), but they still can be used as is according to WP:CITEVIDEO (since they were broadcasted by a reputable party).

* Even though Boud says that only 1 of my 15 recommended very credible articles is relevant, that is not true at all. I have before listed the relevant parts from all the 15 articles here:- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Replay to "Sources for perpetrators or victims of Mai Kadra massacre" (first version's diff). And I even made a shortlist of only 5 specific once to include in the Mai Kadra massacre Wikipedia page (not counting the videos), as you read on the link above :- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag).

* All of my references are from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News , Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, NBC News, NPR and Committee to Protect Journalists, so I don't understand why someone would say they have POV issue. The person Boud is now supporting (User:KZebegna), called all my references from the above outlets "inimical journalists" and "Yellow journalism". He does not agree with the addition of any content from the 15 articles because these are outlets which he calls "foreign propaganda outlets":- Talk:Tigray conflict#Please stop reverting my well referenced (and verified) edits, without a legitimate reason (or diff)

* Boud is misleading, when he says that I am working to give the reporting on the above very credible international media outlets (along the latest position of Amnesty International and the intentional Human Rights Watch) more weight, over what appears to be Boud’s favorite report from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

I) Even thought the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is run by appointees of one of the side of the war (the Ethiopian federal government), I didn’t completely discredited it, I only asked for it to not be given more than equal weight than the others. I did not even bring up the fact that EHRC’s leader Daniel Bekele is a former opposition politician who was convicted & imprisoned for two years for an attempted unconstitutional change in government (this is public record), by the former government sides his EHRC report is now accusing. Given the NOT impartial history of EHRC, I don’t know why Boud wants to take their report as the last word in the bible (e.g. Boud wanted first to make up an ethnic subgroup group called Welkait “everywhere”, because EHRC made up one in its report).

II) By the way, the international Human Rights Watch (HRW) to the contrary agrees with the reporting of the above international media outlets ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/23/interview-uncovering-crimes-committed-ethiopias-tigray-region ); contradicting with EHRC (EHRC stated the Mai Kadra victims were only Amhara/Wekait and the perpetrators Tigrayans). HRW reports both Amhara & Tigrayans were the victims, and points to federal forces as perpetrators, based on refugees.

III) About the outdated preliminary report of Amnesty International:- Amnesty made a preliminary report with its researcher Fisseha Tekle (Amhara ethnic), on this Mai Kardra’s said to be Amharas vs Tigrayan massacre. However, I only asked for the researcher to be named on the Wikipedia page, to point out if any bias (and therefore improve neutrality of the page). Furthermore, and more importantly, Amnesty International (and its researcher Fisseha Tekle) has changed position from the outdated preliminary report. The outdated preliminary report said only Amhara ethnic people were the victims in Mai Kardra, but now even Fisseha Tekle has gone on NPR and Associated Press to correct this (https://www.npr.org/2020/12/28/950886248/hundreds-of-civilians-killed-with-machetes-and-axes-in-ethiopian-town), and now Amnesty International also agrees with the reporting of the above media outlets (that Tigrayans were also half of the victims in Mai Kardra). So Boud is actually making a POV himself by suppressing the latest reporting of the 5 media outlets and the latest Fisseha Tekle (Amnesty) interview on NPR & Associated Press; and using only the “outdated preliminary report of Amnesty” along EHRC. I pointed out the update from the Associated Press several times to Boud before all this (as you can see on the talk page), even though he mostly ignored it ( https://apnews.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-massacres-d16a089f8dcb0511172b5662b9244f78 ). Lets please give all credible published latest views equal & neutral weight is all I’m saying.

* As you may have read my compliant on the first bold link I wrote above:- what could be a better justification for NPOV tag than presenting the side of only one. The page only has a subsection called "Federal government point of view" (Mai Kadra massacre##Federal government point of view) (diff) and gives the accusation of the one side (the federal government). However, it does not have a subsection called "Tigray's regional government point of view" also giving the point of view of the other side, and making the article neutral. The page also lacks significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic; and I have short listed 5 published reliable sources to added (and 1 or 2 video, giving the NBC News video a priority).

* Boud said I "posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors". This is not true again. Boud thought it was an error because s/he does not open videos, and the video on the same article clearly has the point I was making. I have pointed out this to him also (diff). There have been other incidents also when he accused me of error and then corrected himself (on my talk page on the massacre talk page, especially with the interpretation of the phrase "the army"). And about “massive amounts of content” is a misrepresentation. I first only put the links to the credible reference, then when he didn’t see my points with them, I posted the exact quote from the credible article. Then he is now calling these quotes “massive amounts of content”. S/he is accusing me of two opposite things again, one after the other’s reply.

I). A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from my talk page:-"It turned out that reference 2 with ...‘I fled Mai-Kadra, because the army' was a valid rather than "weak" reference, as I did the work to discover."

II).A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from the Mai-Kadra talk page :- "editors making good faith edits can make errors… Immediately before the Geidi sentence about "the army", there is a sentence But several refugees at the Sudanese camp said federal troops had committed atrocities. It is clear that this sentence is an introduction to the following sentence; so the intended meaning of the following sentence is that "the army" is the ENDF. ...So you happen to have been right."

* It is not fair to block me because of things that happened 2 years ago. Please review User:Boud's report and my response independently and decide if I did something wrong worthy of a block. Thank you. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In this gigantic wall-of-text that it's unlikely anyone will fully read, two things stand out to me - That you won't accept responsibility for the behavior that got you topic-banned, and that you're continuing to attack the editor that you claim got you topic-banned. I can tell you without even checking into this further that this will not get you anywhere. This is not even withstanding the fact that the topic ban that was placed on you to begin with isn't even a day ripe.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I accepted full responsibility for things that got me blocked 2 years ago. And I have corrected them. But this topic-ban is not justified. If someone with knowledge on the topics I was editing on after my unblock, manages to review my appeal, they would realize that. It is not fair to topic-ban me without me doing something new worthy of a ban. If I knew this would happen, (and if I knew that it was an allowed option), I would have WP:CLEANSTART to avoid such harassment, as I have ready recognized my past mistakes. Ask yourself a question, do you think I would have been topic banned (or even reported for a topic ban) had I WP:CLEANSTARTed (of if I was a new account), based on my last 1 month edit? NO. To the contrary, I would have even been thanked. That was my point. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)